Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 24

David T. King and William Webster: Misrepresentations and Misleading Out-of-Context or Hyper-Selective Quotations from the Church Fathers: Introduction to My New Series

David T. King and William Webster are anti-Catholic Protestant polemicists who have been very active in opposing the Catholic Church. I have written in the past, twice (one / two) about William Webster's gross ignorance regarding the concept and definition of development of doctrine, and about his solely self-published books [one / two] (including the present three-volume work under consideration).

David T. King, likewise, was exceedingly ignorant about Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman: claiming that he was a modernist who believed in evolution (heretical notion) rather than development (orthodox notion) of doctrines. I quickly disabused him of that fairy tale. I've also refuted his claim that St. John Chrysostom and St. Irenaeus were proponents of sola Scriptura and have three other papers about his foolishness and antics on my Anti-Catholicism web page (one / two / three). None of these have ever been replied to by King, Webster, or any other anti-Catholic.

I'll be devoting a series to the three-volume set of King and Webster, entitled, Holy Scripture: The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith ; in particular, their historical arguments, in Volume II (subtitled, "An Historical Defense of the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura" -- William Webster), and Volume III (subtitled, "The Writings of the Church Fathers Affirming the Reformation Principle of Sola Scriptura" -- Webster and King).

The set was self-published (Battle Ground, Washington: Christian Resources Inc.) in 2001. For a withering critique of it, see Phil Porvaznik's delightful article, "Holy Scripture Volume IV: The Ground and Pillar of Whose Faith? (or what William Webster and David King don't tell you)".

This series will be devoted to exposing the unsavory tactics of (I must say) ultimately intellectually dishonest, sophistical citations of the Church fathers: a thing -- sadly -- very common in less scholarly Protestant circles from the very beginning. I've written many times about this (see examples on my Church Fathers page), including several examinations of John Calvin's "patristic distortions" in my first book devoted to him. King and Webster engage in the same timeworn, cynical, many-times-refuted tactics.

To start, let's be sure to present exactly what it is the authors / editors are contending for. All effective critiques must always nail down matters of definition and goals in the work being scrutinized. A Foreword by the King of the anti-Catholics, James White (to whom I have just devoted a book-length refutation), appears in the first two volumes. Mr. White writes:

The doctrine of sola Scriptura is a divinely given bulwark against error and the traditions of men. It teaches us that Scripture is the sole infallible rule of faith for the Church. . . . 

Responding directly and forcefully to those of the Roman Church who press flawed, illogical, un-scriptural, and a-historical arguments upon a gullible audience, Webster and King demonstrate the truth of sola Scriptura through sound and knowledgeable exegesis of the text of Scripture and the writings of the early Christians. (Vol. I, 11-12)

King gets in his shots, too, in his Introduction to Vol. I:

In this work, we intend to prove that Roman apologists have misrepresented and manipulated the truth of Scripture, the facts of history, the writings of the Church Fathers and what the Reformers believed and taught regarding sola Scriptura. (Vol. I, 20)

In his Introduction to Vol. II, Webster pontifi---, er, opined:

. . . Scripture is both materially and formally sufficient. The reformers argued that the Church is not infallible but that all tradition and teaching must be subject to the final authority of Scripture. Scripture is the sole and final arbiter of truth, infallible and the ultimate authority. (Vol. II, 17)

. . . we will examine what the Church fathers taught about Scripture and tradition. We will find that the Reformers were correct in claiming patristic support for the principle of sola Scriptura . . . It is the Roman Catholic teaching on tradition and authority which is unbiblical and unhistorical. (Vol. II, 18)

The Introduction of Vol. III (no author given: both men edited this volume) focuses in on the Church fathers:

The Reformers insisted that Scripture was the ultimate authority for the Church and . . . that Scripture alone was . . . the only infallible rule of faith. . . .

When they [the Church fathers] are allowed to speak for themselves it becomes clear that they universally taught sola Scriptura in the fullest sense of the term embracing both the material and formal sufficiency of Scripture. This is clearly revealed by statements, such as the following, which are found repeatedly in their writings:

1) Scripture is the sole source of doctrine for the faith of the Church.
2) All doctrines necessary for salvation and moral living for the Christian are contained in Scripture.
3.) All doctrines must be proven from Scripture.
4.) What the Apostles taught orally has been handed down in Scripture.
5.) Scripture is the ultimate judge in all controversies.
6.) Scripture is the ultimate and supreme authority for the Church.
7.) If Scripture is silent on an issue it cannot be known.
8.) All teachers and councils are subject to the authority of Scripture.
9.) Any bishop or teacher who teaches doctrines that are not contained in Scripture or are contradictory to Scripture is to be rejected.
10.) Scripture reveals clearly and plainly all truths necessary for salvation and moral living.
11.) Scripture interprets Scripture, i.e., it is self-interpreting.
12.) The Holy Spirit reveals truth and gives understanding of Scripture directly to those who pray and walk in obedience.

. . . it is the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura which [is] true to the ancient faith and practice of the Church and that it is, in fact, the roman catholic Church which has misrepresented the Church fathers . . . (Vol. III, 9-10)

I submit that when readers see how Webster and King systematically, selectively prooftext the fathers and ignore hundreds of other statements of theirs that don't fit into their preconceived Protestant notions of authority (superimposed anachronistically back onto the fathers), that a very different picture will emerge, and that the fathers will be shown to be -- as always -- quite profoundly consistent with Catholic teaching with regard to the question of authority, tradition, Church, and Scripture (i.e., the rule of faith) that is the focus of the three-volume set.

I've already demonstrated this in a trilogy of books devoted to Catholic distinctives in the Church fathers (one / two / three), and in, e.g., a very in-depth debate on the fathers and sola Scriptura with anti-Catholic apologist Jason Engwer (one / two / three / four).  Now I will demonstrate how the attempt to establish the exact opposite (i.e., supposed Protestant distinctives in the fathers specifically in relation to the all-important question of authority and the rule of faith) fails miserably and is based on intellectually dishonest, highly selective use of quotations, to the exclusion of other highly relevant ones that don't fit into the preconceived (anti-Catholic / absurdly tendentious) "talking points."

I will show repeatedly how the citations presented prove nothing of what is claimed for them (or that we already agree, so that a quotation is a moot point with regard to Protestant-Catholic disputes), and how others that are omitted directly contradict sola Scriptura itself, and various tenets that comprise or surround it: particularly the twelve points above.

Books by Dave Armstrong: Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion

(12 chapters) ----- To purchase, go to the bottom of the page -----
  Table of Contents  
Dedication (p. 3):

To all who have ever read one of James White's books or articles on Catholicism, or listened to his oral debates or webcasts on the same topic: especially those who are open to following the truth wherever it leads them.

Introduction (p. 5) [read online]
1. Is Catholicism Christian? [“postal” debate of March-May 1995] (letters begin on pp. 16, 19, 31, 52, 76, and 117) (p. 15) [read original complete debate online]
2. Dialogue on the Alleged “Perspicuous Apostolic Message” as a Proof of the Quasi-Protestantism of the Early Church [May-June 1996] (p. 119) [read online]
3. “Live Chat” Dialogue on Patristic Consensus (Particularly, Mariology) + Analysis of Mr. White's Applied Techniques of Sophistry [29 December 2000-January 2001 / 2 December 2007] (p. 135)
[read online + analysis of sophistry]
4. A Refutation of the Fallacies and Circular Reasoning of James White Regarding Authentic Tradition and Sola Scriptura [27 December 2003] (p. ) [read online]
5. Rebuttal to James White's Critique of My Book, The Catholic Verses: Largely a Sad Demonstration of His Remarkable Inability to Grasp the Basic Goals of the Volume [December 2004-January 2005] (p. )
6. Refutation of James White Regarding Moses' Seat, the Bible, and Tradition [May 2005] (p. )
7. Critique of James White's Arguments on 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 and Purgatory [3 March 2007] (p. )
[read online]
8. Reply to James White on the Council of Nicaea and Its Relationship to Pope Sylvester, St. Athanasius' Views, and the Unique Preeminence of Catholic Authority [2 April 2007] (p. ) [read online]
9. Reply to Mr. White's Critique of My Book, The One-Minute Apologist: Regarding Deacons as the Equivalent of Pastors and Elders in Some Denominations [16 June 2007] (p. ) [read online]
10. Rebuttal to James White's Review of The One-Minute Apologist: On the Communion of Saints [20 June 2007] (p. ) [read online]
11. Answers to James White's Top Ten Questions for “Romanist” Converts [4 September 2007] (p. )
[read online]
12. Critique of James White's Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies [9 October 2013] (p. ) [read online]

Miscellaneous

Announcement of the Book and Discussion on Facebook [10-26-13]

Purchase Options

Paperback (List: $xx.xx95 / xx% Lulu Discount: $xx.xx) [soon]
$6.99 [soon] $2.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]

Uploaded on 29 October 2013.

Introduction to My Book, Debating James White: Shocking Failures of the “Undefeatable” Anti-Catholic Champion

An anti-Catholic– in scholarly usage – is not merely a person who differs with Catholicism. Nor does it refer to someone who “hates” Catholics or opposes all things Catholic simply because they are Catholic. And it doesn't refer to emotions or opposition to individuals, but rather, to Catholic theology.
The anti-Catholic is one who thinks that Catholicism is not a Christian system of theology and that to be a good Christian and get saved, one must be a badCatholic; that is, reject several tenets of Catholicism that differ with Protestantism; or in the case of Orthodox anti-Catholics, with Orthodoxy.
But first let me introduce the man who is the subject of this book. James White (b. 1962) is a Reformed Baptist apologist, author, public speaker and debater, and elder at his church. He does many other things in his apologetics besides oppose Catholic theology, and many of these are good and worthwhile endeavors; for example, his critiques of Islam (his recent emphasis), the King James Only viewpoint, theological liberalism, Mormonism, and atheism.
By and large, in dealing with these topics, he does a good job, in my opinion, and I have often publicly commended him for it. When it comes to Catholicism, on the other hand, it's quite a different story. In that domain he falls into the typical (and rather outrageous) errors of anti-Catholic thought.
Mr. White is the founder and director of Alpha and Omega Ministries, which began in 1983. In 1990 he started concentrating on critiquing Catholicism, and produced his first two books on the topic: The Fatal Flaw, and Answers to Catholic Claims (both by Crowne Publications: 1990). His other books (out of 26) that are devoted wholly or largely to Catholicism, include The Roman Catholic Controversy (1996), Mary – Another Redeemer? (1998), The God Who Justifies(2001), and Scripture Alone (2004): all published by Bethany House.
White obtained an M.A. Degree in theology from Fuller Theological seminary in 1989. During the mid-90s as the Internet began to flourish, he began devoting a lot of time and energy to that medium, and he started his weekly webcast, The Dividing Line, in September 1998. It often deals with Catholicism. He developed a website and blog, with voluminous writings, as well.
He is probably most known (and renowned) for his formal oral debates. According to his website he has done 117 of these, starting in August 1990, including 38 devoted to various Catholic beliefs: or 32% of all his debates. He engaged in more than one debate with apologists such as Fr. Mitch Pacwa (five), Robert Fastiggi (four), Tim Staples (three), and Patrick Madrid (two).
White also has challenged me to oral debate on three occasions: 1995, 2001, and 2007. Thus, he averages a request every six years (even though – oddly enough – he constantly asserts that I am a profound imbecile and ignoramus in theological and exegetical matters), and is due to ask me again before this year is out. Perhaps this book will be the impetus.
My answer was the same in every instance: I regard oral debates as vastly inferior to written debate and I don't cultivate public speaking, in any event. I note that White is also a writer, whereas I am a writer only, so that the written medium is where we could and should best interact: the common ground.
“Debating” in the title of this volume is especially apt, as it highlights how Mr. White views himself and how he – by all appearances – especially wants to be known. I love debate and dialogue, myself, as a longtime socratic and apologist. Christian apologists (defenders of the faith: in either its Protestant, Catholic, or Orthodox forms) certainly debate; if they don't, they are surely not apologists worth their salt.
The question at hand, however, is how to define a debate, what one's intentionsare in undertaking one, and whether the truth is being defended while debating.
Mr. White engages in habitual “boilerplate” regarding his debates and those who (for whatever reason) decline to participate in them with him. One very common theme is his notion that writers “hide behind their keyboards” – they are (he thinks) intellectual cowards and scared to death to face him -- the Terrifying and Unanswerable Scourge of Catholics – behind a podium in a public oral debate. Here are three examples:
Dr. Stauffer: Brave Behind the Keyboard, Unwilling to Defend His Assertions (article title: 3-25-06 on his blog)
. . . Armstrong continues to refuse to debate man to man in person, and wishes only to hide behind his keyboard where he knows that no one, and I mean no one, can possibly force him to answer a direct question. As long as you can use the written forum, you can avoid the very essence of debate, the heart of debate, which is answering direct questions that test your position for consistency. Armstrong knows he is simply constitutionally incapable of the task, but he refuses to admit it, opting instead for this kind of rhetoric. (7-12-07 on his blog)
There are far too many folks who hide behind a keyboard on web forums . . . (2-3-09 on his blog)
Mr. White's typical treatment of yours truly (since 1995) is clearly observed above. I will try as much as is possible in this book to avoid documenting his constant juvenile and sub-Christian resort to personal insult, so as not to afflict readers with silly tedium (I wish to stick solely to theological issues). But removing White's ubiquitous insults of his Catholic opponents in written records is very often about as easy as removing the white stripe from a candy cane: it's so intermingled as to be impossible to extricate from the substance. I'll do my best! 
The other frequent and annoying theme with regard to Mr. White's debates and his “spin” about them, is the notion that when an oral debate did occur and the other party didn't make it available in his venue, this “proves” a tacit admission of defeat. Here's an absolutely classic instance of that polemic, from a website article (9-18-00) reprinted on 12-28-12 on his blog:
I have seen my opponents use many tactics to cover over poor performances in debates. You will find documented on this website at least one imaginative approach taken by Catholic Answers back in 1993 when Patrick Madrid attempted to do damage control after our sola scriptura debate in San Diego by writing “The White Man’s Burden” in This Rockmagazine . . .   But never before have we seen such complete and utter admission of defeat than we are seeing from St. Joseph Communications regarding the July debate with Tim Staples on Papal Infallibility in Fullerton, California . . .   . . . we have learned that Saint Joseph’sis still not selling the audio tapes of the debate, and that more than two months after the encounter. We have been making the tapes available since the week after the debate. We made it available as soon as we possibly could. . . . you cannot, as of today (September 18th, 2000), order the debate from Saint Joseph’s. Why not?
Of course, White has never ever linked to our own first lengthy 1995 “postal debate.” He gave me permission to post it on my website, but he has never linked to it. Thus, if we follow his reasoning above, how is that not an admission that he lost the debate (especially given the fact that he left my final 36-page single-spaced response utterly unanswered)? Otherwise, why wouldn't he encourage folks read our exchange, so they can see how marvelously he allegedly did and how miserably I did?
White would respond that our exchange was not a debate in the first place, because it wasn't moderated or live in front of an audience. It would be tough to argue with a straight face that a debate must always be oral and can never be in writing. That would take out, for example, many of the famous debates in the 16th century between Catholics and Protestants, such as those between Erasmus and Martin Luther, or John Calvin and Cardinal Sadoleto. It would also entail the absurd position that the ancient philosopher Plato wrote no dialogues or debates (often reconstructions of the great Socrates engaging in dialogue).
For my part, I have had a consistent track record in favor of written, point-by-point exchanges where two parties seriously interact with each other and engage in several rounds of back-and-forth response. I have participated in well over 700 of these on my blog and earlier website, since 1996 when I first went online. I wrote at length about the relative merits of oral and written debate in a website paper dated January 2001:
It is said that in a public, oral debate, obfuscation, or “muddying the waters” is minimized by the other person's ability to correct errors immediately, and to “call” the opponent on this, that, or the other fact or argument. But this assumes that immediate, spur-of-the-moment corrections are more compelling than a correction which resulted from hours of careful research with primary sources, Scripture, etc. 
It is said that live oral debates are a better use of time; that things can be said quicker than they can in writing. But I respond that truth takes time to find and communicate. Propaganda, on the other hand (such as the norm of today's political rhetoric) is very easy to quickly spout. Evangelicalism lends itself far more easily to shallow rhetoric and slogans; Catholicism does not. It is complex, nuanced, and requires much thought and study. And thought takes time, no matter how you slice the cake. Again, truth and the acquisition of knowledge and wisdom requires time. 
It is claimed that there is more interest in oral public debates. I'm not so sure about that, especially with the advent of the Internet, but perhaps this is true. In any event, that has no bearing on my own objections. It is not public debate per se I am opposed to, but the perversion of it by unworthy tactics and methods, which is the usual result when one is dealing with anti-Catholics. So I am actually supporting what I consider to be true debate, not the pale imitations of it which pass for “debates.” 
It is asserted that it's harder to get away with lies and half-truths in the public arena. Quite the contrary, I would maintain; it is much easier to disinform and misinform, because one can put up an appearance of confidence and truth very easily, through rhetorical technique, catch-phrases, cleverness, playing to the crowd, etc. These things are by no means as "certain" as avid proponents of oral debate make them out to be. 
It is stated (by anti-Catholics) that Catholics don't fare well in public oral debates. Under my thesis, I could readily agree with that. It is true that the Catholic faith is not conducive to an environment where sophistical carnival-barker, used-car salesman types try to distort, twist, and misrepresent it at every turn (and this need not be deliberate at all: it matters not -- the end result is the same).
In an earlier paper (11-27-00) I wrote:
The Catholic position is not well-presented at such “debates” (i.e., public, oratorical ones) because it is complex, highly interrelated, and (in its complexity, spiritual profundity, and inner logic) much more a “thinking man's religion” than Protestantism is. Presenting such an outlook can't very easily be done in a time-limited debate where our opponent is playing the audience like a carnival barker or a dishonest politician. It canbe done in a book or a lengthy article, or in a website which deals with allthe interrelated topics (or at least links to them), so that the inquirer can learn how they are thoroughly biblical, coherent, and true to history (and development of doctrine is also another huge and crucial, necessary factor not easily summarized or even understood by many).  Again, it has to do with the complexity and interrelatedness of the Catholic position, and the difficulty in promulgating it in sound-bytes, as is the case in so many brands of evangelicalism. Websites are uniquely designed to teach the faith, if this complexity is granted (with the technology of links). I think the only near-equivalent to this in live debate would be a series of debates, one after the other, so that the faith can be seen in its many dimensions and in its marvelous cohesiveness: what I would call a “cumulative apologetic argument.”  In a debate about papal infallibility, for instance, it would be necessary to also have debates on apostolic succession, episcopacy, the nature of the Church, indefectibility, the nature of authority, NT teaching on Tradition, development of doctrine, the self-defeating nature of sola Scriptura, etc. I don't think the average Protestant has any hope of understanding papal infallibility (and “problems” like the Honorius case) without someknowledge of these other presuppositional issues.   In short, then, I think that any number of Catholic apologists could and would win such a debate on content (because our argument is true, and many apologists could convincingly present it), yet “lose” it in terms of impact on the audience, and in terms of the difficulty of persuading even those fair-minded or predisposed to be convinced of our side. We should take before and after surveys of people who attend these “debates” to see whether what I suspect is true or not (and make it a condition of the debate).  If we must debate these sophists and cynically clever men, at least we need to make sure they have to also defend their position and not just run ours down with the standard, garden-variety anti-Catholic gibberish, bolstered with “quasi-facts” and half-truths presented in a warped, distorted fashion. Those who don't know any better will always be taken in by those tactics (which is exactly why anti-Catholics continue to use them, consciously or not).  Most public debate formats will not allow a fair exchange to occur, due to complexity of subject matter, and the stacked deck which requires us to defend complex truths, while the anti-Catholic escapes his responsibility of defending the generally unexamined absurdities and self-contradictions of his own position. Many anti-Catholics are never, ever willing to defend their own view beyond the usual trivial, sloganistic, sarcastic jibes.  It depends in large part on how one defines “debate” or being “good at it.” If by that is meant that a person is able to be quick on his feet and offer both objections and answers; sure, many anti-Catholics are (especially the more educated ones). If, however, one means by being a good debater, being honest with the facts and honestly dealing with one's opponents best shots, most professional anti-Catholics are atrocious. These are my opinions about the shortcomings of circus-like oral “debates” with anti-Catholic apologists, and the main rationale for why I don't engage in them. If someone thinks that written debate is not debate, then this book is not for them, since it will mostly consist of written debates and point-by-point critiques. But for those who agree with me that written, back-and-forth, substantive exchanges are worthy of the name “debate,” this book will be a (hopefully helpful) close examination of the flawed theology of James White and his critiques of Catholicism. 

In fact, despite his “oral debate only” rhetoric, Mr. White has written or contributed to at least two books that consisted of debates with others: Debating Calvinism vs. Dave Hunt(Multnomah: 2004), and The Plurality of Elders in Perspectives on Church Government: Five Views of Church Polity(Broadman-Holman: 2004). He's surely debated me, too.   I'm happy, as always, to present both sides and let the reader judge. This is the beauty of dialogue or even non-dialogical exchanges where at least one person defends a true position. The truth will always shine through if one is open to following it wherever it may lead. White's efforts at debunking Catholicism fail first and foremost because he is opposing what is true. “You can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.”
The material will be presented chronologically, and Mr. White's words (excepting the first very long debate) will be italicized. If his position is so superior, it'll withstand all this close scrutiny, But if not . . . 

* * * * *
 

"Pope Francis for Dummies": Helpful Resources for Folks Who Are Puzzled, Perplexed, or Bamboozled by Ubiquitous Media Imbecilities and Remarkably Christlike Words and Actions

I wrote on 9-20-13:

For all of you out there worried about the pope. Relax; chill. All is well. We have a pope who says the unexpected: a lot like Jesus. And, like Jesus, those who don't get it and are outside looking in, will misunderstand, and those who are in the fold will grasp what is being said, in the context of historic Catholic teaching, if they look closely enough and don't get hoodwinked by silly media wishful thinking.

Those who are outside often hear only what they want to hear (God loves everyone, even sinners!!!) and not what they need to hear (stop sinning; stop this sin . . .).

I wrote in a letter to a friend:

It's the same old dumb misunderstandings: media misreports what the pope said; never understand what he means in context, and in context with past teachings. Don't fall into their trap! Pope Francis is a good Catholic; nothing to be alarmed about at all. The world wants Christians to renounce their teachings. We're the guys who have never done so. We keep the same moral teaching that the Church had from the beginning: no abortion, no divorce, no contraception, no same-sex "marriages," etc. Virtually no one else has done so! So the attack is against us to change traditional morality, and we will never do that.

Nine things you need to know about Pope Francis's inaugural Mass (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-17-13)

Should We Be Concerned About Pope Francis's Inaugural Mass? (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-18-13)

Pope Francis on Homosexual Unions (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-20-13)

Behind the Campaign to Smear the Pope (Mary Anastasia O'Grady, Crisis / The Wall Street Journal, 3-22-13)

How Should We Understand Pope Francis Washing Women's Feet? (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 3-28-13)

Canon Lawyer Pete Vere on the Pope Francis Foot-Washing Controversy (Dave Armstrong's Facebook page, 3-30-13) 

Radical Catholic Reactionary Super-Site Rorate Caeli's "Cherished Friend" and Featured Pope-Basher, Marcelo González, is a Holocaust Revisionist (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 4-8-13)

Pope Francis and lying to save life  (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 5-15-13)

Did Pope Francis Preach Salvation by Works?? (Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Standing on My Head, 5-23-13)

Dreadful Misleading Headline of Catholic Online Pins Heresy on Pope (Brian Kelly, Catholicism.org, 5-23-13)

Did Pope Francis Say That Atheists Can Get to Heaven by Good Works? (Jimmy Akin, JimmyAkin.com, 5-24-13)

Did Pope Francis poke Protestants in the eye? (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 6-4-13)

Pope Francis and the Vatican "gay lobby"—10 things to know and share (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 6-12-13)

From the IOR to the gay lobby: Pope Francis tells all on flight from Rio to Rome  (Andrea Tornielli, Vatican Insider, 7-29-13)

Seven things you need to know about what Pope Francis said about gays (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 7-29-13

Pope Francis and the Franciscan Friars (Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers, 7-30-13)

Don’t Tell the Press: Pope Francis Is Using Them (Elizabeth Scalia, First Things, 7-30-13)

Franciscans of the Immaculate decree worries traditionalists (Catholic News Agency, 7-39-13)

Pope Francis on Homosexuality: Take a Deep Breath (Scott P. Richert, About.com Catholicism, 7-30-13)

On the Pope’s Remarks about Homosexuality (Scott P. Richert, Crisis, 8-1-13)

What Did the Pope Really Say about Gays in the Priesthood?  (Fr. Regis Scanlon, O.F.M. Cap., Crisis, 8-5-13)

Pope Francis Uses the Terminology of "Extreme Traditionalism" (Some Quibbles with Kevin Tierney's Arguments) (Dave Armstrong, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, 8-5-13)

Pope Francis Will Enliven the Benedict Legacy (Jeffrey Tucker, Crisis, 8-12-13)

What should we make of Pope Francis bowing when greeting people?  (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 8-30-13)

Is Pope Francis about to eliminate celibacy? (9 things to know and share) (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 9-12-13) 

What Pope Francis really said about atheists (Stephen Kokx, Catholic Vote, 9-13-13)

Did Pope Francis say atheists don’t need to believe in God to be saved? (9 things to know) (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 9-15-13)

Pope Francis Focuses on the Bigger Picture With New Interview (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register,  9-20-13)

Pope condemns abortion as product of 'throwaway culture' (Francis X. Rocca, Catholic News Service,
9-20-13)

Go Home New York Times, You’re Drunk  (Steven D. Greydanus, National Catholic Register,  9-20-13)

Francis’ Interview and the Unexpected Unity of the NY Times and the Francis Haters (Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It, 9-20-13)

Pope Francis Contradicts Himself! (Mark Shea, Catholic and Enjoying It, 9-20-13)

Francis Confounds the Associated Press (Elizabeth Scalia, The Anchoress, 9-20-13)

Francis and Benedict, Peter and John (Thomas L. McDonald, God and the Machine, 9-20-13)

The key to understanding Pope Francis: the 99 lost sheep (Phil Lawler, CatholicCulture.org, 9-20-13)
 
Pope Francis and His Critics  (Scott P. Richert, Crisis, 9-23-13)

Pope Francis Has Not Diluted the Pro-Life Teachings of the Catholic Church (Fr. Frank Pavone, LifeNews.com, 9-23-13)

The Mission of Pope Francis, S. J. (Michelle Arnold, Catholic Answers, 9-23-13)

Report: Pope Excommunicates Priest for Supporting Gay Marriage, Female Priest (Dr. Susan Berry, Breitbart, 9-24-13)

The Papal Interview: A Survey of Reactions  (Joseph Meaney, Crisis, 9-25-13) 

Pope Francis and ‘The Interview’ (Abp. Charles Chaput, CatholicPhilly.com, 9-25-13)

Pope Francis: Every Unborn Child Has the Lord's Face (Andrew M. Greenwell, Esq., Catholic Online, 9-26-13)

A Big Heart Open to God: The exclusive [complete] interview with Pope Francis (Antonio Spadaro, S. J., America, 9-30-13)

Did Pope Francis just say that evangelization is “nonsense”? 8 things to know and share  (Jimmy Akin, National Catholic Register, 10-1-13)

Is Pope Francis about to “rip up” the Vatican constitution? 12 things to know and share (Jimmy Akin,  National Catholic Register, 10-2-13)

The Pope’s Pro-Life Declaration “in Context”  (Dr. William Oddie, Crisis, 10-3-13)

Atheist interviewer didn’t take notes, record interview with Pope Francis: Vatican spokesman  (John-Henry Westen, LifeSiteNews.com, 10-7-13)

* * * * *

Dialogue on Faith and Works and the Relation of Each to the Final Judgment (vs. Bethany Kerr)

This took place spontaneously in a Facebook post announcing a new paper of mine. Bethany is a very friendly evangelical with Calvinist leanings. Her words will be in blue.

We are justified by our faith and our works, and it is not of ourselves. It's not a contradiction when James says we are justified by works, because if we are saved we will necessarily have works...

For example, you can't control your own conception or birth, and Jesus metaphorically explained salvation as being "born again".  A baby is born, not of his own will, but of God's. A baby cannot will himself into existence, and neither can one dead in trespasses and sins will themselves into being made alive in Christ.

How do we know a baby is alive? By seeing if he is breathing, kicking, sucking, etc. By the baby's works, we find evidence he has been born. This is the way we come to the conclusion that he is alive.

In the same way, our works "justify" in that they provide evidence for our rebirth. A baby can only be born once, and likewise one can be spiritually born only once.

We don't disagree on those matters, as I noted.

So you don't believe we in any way earn our salvation?  

We can't earn our salvation by our own efforts, considered in isolation from God's grace (the heresy of Pelagianism). We can, however merit in God's sight by applying the gift of God that He gave us (as St. Augustine put it: God "crowning His own gifts"), and working together with Him. After regeneration and initial justification we can do meritorious works, enabled and bathed in God's grace.

These are not abstractly separated from salvation and put in a neat little box of "sanctification only," as Reformed and other Protestants do. Since true biblical justification is infused and transformative, works are part of justification.

Hence we find that, e.g., in 50 Bible passages I've found about the final judgment, only works are mentioned and never faith. One cannot help but to find that striking. 

If they're not completely separated from salvation, isn't that saying they play a role in achieving salvation?

Yes, in the sense I said. The problem is that Protestants almost always misunderstand the exact sense that Catholics believe in. 90% of all such discussions require time spent simply explaining what we believe, because the misunderstandings are so massive and systematic.

If you read my recent paper vs. James White, I explain much of this in it. I wrote in the paper, citing one of my own books [Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths]:

For the Catholic, justification is not the same thing as salvation or the attainment of eternal life. It can be lost or rejected by means of human free will and disobedience. So, to assert “justification by works,” even in a qualified sense, is not at all the same as asserting salvation by works. Therefore, it is scripturally improper to assert either salvation by works alone or salvation by faith alone. They are never taught in Holy Scripture, and are both denied more than once. Justification by faith or justification by works can be asserted in a limited sense, as Scripture does: always understood as hand-in-hand with the other two elements in the grace-faith-works triumvirate.

Also from the paper:

Catholics believe we are justified by faith and also by grace-based works done by the regenerate believer in conjunction with faith, as a co-laborer with God (1 Cor 3:9; 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1). . . . The Bible elsewhere freely places Rahab's faith and works together. They are of a piece: neither can or should be ignored:

Hebrews 11:31 [RSV] By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies.

Notice the "because" in the verse? Moreover, it is not foreign Scripture, to expressly state that works are the cause of justification or even a central criterion for eternal life. We've already noted this in Paul, above. Here it is again (repetition being a good teaching device):

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

So you don't believe the works themselves in any way merit salvation, except in the sense Protestants believe... That our works are the fruit of our salvation and not our means of earning or keeping it?

I did read most of the article... Okay I skimmed it... But I do feel confused about what you're saying because it sounds like you're saying two things.

I have talked to many Catholics who believe that you must work In order to enter heaven... Not as a result of salvation but the cause of it. I once had a friend who I asked, if you were standing before God and he asked you why he should let you into heaven, what would you say? She replied, not mentioning Christ once, but listing her various works.

And she was very scriptural, because that is what the Bible always gives as a reason to enter heaven. I found 50 of these passages.

But in the case of Rahab the harlot, the Bible also refers to her faith, which was the cause of her works.

I will send you my book on salvation: e-book in a PM. I also have lots of material on my Justification and Salvation page that goes over all these sorts of questions.

Thanks Dave, I'll read it.

If we can tell God that he should let us in on the basis of our works, then that nullifies, "lest any man should boast."

Why does Scripture mention works only every time it discusses the last judgment and being let into heaven or sent to hell? Matthew 25 is the classic . . . I wouldn't argue that this means faith is no factor, but the fact remains that it is absent in all those accounts. Therefore, works cannot be separated from the equation of final salvation. But they are always accompanied by faith and enabled by God's free grace.

It's not boasting about works, but showing one's genuine faith via works, as in James; showing that it is a real faith and not dead, lifeless, unfruitful faith.

It's showing faith that on the basis of works, and not Christs atonement, God should allow you into heaven though. The question was "why should I let you in heaven". If the answer to "why" is "because I was good", that is boasting in your works to enter heaven.

The Bible talks about works the same reason I say a baby is alive because of his works (breathing, crying, etc.) Could a baby boast that he breathes? Or cries? Those abilities only came through the credit of God. 

Whatever you call it; it's scriptural. Our answer to God's question of why we should go to heaven when we stand before Him, could incorporate any one or all of the following 50 responses: all perfectly biblical, and many right from the words of God Himself:

1) I am characterized by righteousness.
2) I have integrity.
3) I'm not wicked.
4) I'm upright in heart.
5) I've done good deeds.
6) I have good ways.
7) I'm not committing abominations.
8 ) I have good conduct.
9) I'm not angry with my brother.
10) I'm not insulting my brother.
11) I'm not calling someone a fool.
12) I have good fruits.
13) I do the will of God.
14) I hear Jesus' words and do them.
15) I endured to the end.
16) I fed the hungry.
17) I provided drink to the thirsty.
18) I clothed the naked.
19) I welcomed strangers.
20) I visited the sick.
21) I visited prisoners.
22) I invited the poor and the maimed to my feast.
23) I'm not weighed down with dissipation.
24) I'm not weighed down with drunkenness.
25) I'm not weighed down with the cares of this life.
26) I'm not ungodly.
27) I don't suppress the truth.
28) I've done good works.
29) I obeyed the truth.
30) I'm not doing evil.
31) I have been a "doer of the law."
32) I've been a good laborer and fellow worker with God.
33) I'm unblameable in holiness.
34) I've been wholly sanctified.
35) My spirit and soul and body are sound and blameless.
36) I know God.
37) I've obeyed the gospel.
38) I've shared Christ's sufferings.
39) I'm without spot or blemish.
40) I've repented.
41) I'm not a coward.
42) I'm not faithless.
43) I'm not polluted.
44) I'm not a murderer.
45) I'm not a fornicator.
46) I'm not a sorcerer.
47) I'm not an idolater.
48) I'm not a liar.
49) I invited the lame to my feast.
50) I invited the blind to my feast.

Where does Jesus get glory in all of that list?

It's not boasting. We understand that it is from God. Yet we still did them, working with God's grace, as Paul says: "working together with him . . . " "Boasting" in the sense that Paul condemns would be saying that "I did these works with no help from God's grace at all; therefore I have earned heaven." That is the Pelagian heresy.

What he did on Calvary just seems ignored... And that is my main problem. He became sin for us. All of our sin was laid on him. By his stripes we were healed. Sin was inputed to him, and righteousness was imputed to us.

He gets the glory as the source of the grace that enabled all the works. This is what the Bible says: all that is straight from biblical accounts. If you say it is not giving God glory then your beef is with the Bible itself and Jesus and Paul's and other's words, not with Catholicism. Read Jesus' words in Matthew 25:

Matthew 25:31-46 When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.

But notice that the sheep asked him, when did we do these things? They did not recall their goodness for merit. 

I hope you know I'm not trying to be annoying with these questions. 

You're not interacting with the biblical data . . . . this was the same problem with White's chapter. He read into the text things that weren't there, whereas I exegeted it and gave relevant cross-references.

When we stand before a righteous and holy God, can we really see ourselves as righteous except by his imputed righteousness? Isaiah cried, I am a man of unclean lips... Was he not a righteous man?

Yes, and now you've stumbled into why purgatory is so necessary. Thanks! We make it to heaven because we've exercised faith by God's grace, in Jesus; accepting His death on the cross on our behalf; exhibited by works. Now we have to be made actually holy and without sin, and that's where purgatory is necessary for almost all of us.

No; that is the reason that atonement is necessary. That is why when God asks, "why should I let you into heaven?" I can say , "thank you for providing a lamb to take place of me, taking on the full penalty for all of my sins, so that I could enter heaven. Thank you for your promise, your free gift." Purgatory implies that Jesus payment was not enough.

You can say that; sure. My point was that whenever Scripture deals with this exact topic, that is never what it describes as being said; rather, it's always works. And that is what you have to grapple with: why that is. The same Jesus also said:

Matthew 7:16-23 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? [17] So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. [18] A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. [19] Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. [20] Thus you will know them by their fruits. [21] "Not every one who says to me, `Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. [22] On that day many will say to me, `Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' [23] And then will I declare to them, `I never knew you; depart from me, you evildoers.' 

Ok well I will agree to disagree for now.

Like I said, you're not disagreeing with me, but multiple instances of inspired Scripture. All I've done is cite Scripture on this. James explains all of this nicely, and that was the topic of White's chapter that I replied to:

James 2:14-26 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? [15] If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, [16] and one of you says to them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled," without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? [17] So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead. [18] But some one will say, "You have faith and I have works." Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. [19] You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe -- and shudder. [20] Do you want to be shown, you shallow man, that faith apart from works is barren? [21] Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? [22] You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by works, [23] and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. [24] You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. [25] And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? [26] For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so faith apart from works is dead.

Echoed by Paul:

Romans 2:5-13 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. [11] For God shows no partiality. [12] All who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. [13] For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified.

I'm sorry I realized that sounded abrupt. I didn't mean it to sound that way. I had a baby crying in the background so had to tend to him.

We have both cited Scripture. You more than me since I was basically asking questions, but I agree with all the scripture you post. We have disagreement on the interpretation of those scriptures. You agree there, I'm sure.

No problem, Bethany! 

*****

Reply to James White's Exegesis of James 2 in Chapter 20 of His Book, The God Who Justifies

I have recounted in a past post, White's hit piece on his webcast, The Dividing Line. During his broadcast of 15 February 2008, in between endless mockery and calling me a liar and dishonest and an imbecile (etc., zzzzzzz), he commented about yours truly:

I don't know how long I spent, writing the chapter on James 2 in The God Who Justifies. . . . I've never seen a meaningful refutation or even an attempted refutation of that chapter . . . and I'll tell you one thing. Dave will call this mocking. This isn't mocking; this is a simple fact. That man is not up to even trying. He doesn't have the skills; he doesn't have the background; he doesn't have the training; . . .

Roman Catholic apologists . . . don't keep up with what anyone else is saying, who's providing a response to them . . . .

I dealt with the latter lie, documenting several examples of the opposite. Now I shall reply to his chapter. How he will almost certainly behave after I do so was dealt with in the previous paper (citing many past instances of his unsavory behavior), and I need not revisit that.

White's book, The God Who Justifies , was published in 2001 by Bethany House (Minneapolis). Chapter 20 is entitled, "James Attacks Empty Faith." It runs from pages 329-354. The great bulk of it is devoted to notions and aspects where Catholics and Protestants fully agree:

1) A person is saved by God's grace.

2) A person is saved by exercising faith (itself caused by God's grace).

3) True faith will manifest itself in good works.

4) A person demonstrates his genuine faith by performance of works.

There is no need to deal with these aspects since there is no disagreement. The main disagreement Catholics would have here would be the attempted removal of sanctification and works from the equation of salvation altogether (formal separation of justification and sanctification and merely imputed, forensic, external justification) and the notion that salvation is an already attained past event, after which the saved person does good works in gratefulness to God for his salvation, thus proving or manifesting evidence that he is saved. Reformed Protestants take it further and claim that this salvation can never be lost, once attained. 

White asserts over and over in the chapter, that the person demonstrates or "shows" his faith (per James) by his works. That is true in most respects, but Catholics would argue that this is not the be-all and end-all of the purpose of James. We agree that a justified person can and does do works in gratefulness to God, but we deny that it is the only neat little "slot" that works can be placed in, as if they have nothing whatsoever to do with final salvation.
 
Moreover, we would quibble with White's argument that James refers to justification and faith and works in a sense altogether distinct from St. Paul, so that portions of Paul's writings about justification and faith cannot properly be cross-referenced with regard to James' treatment; moreover, that justification is an entirely past event in the believer's life (one who is doing good works), and is a one-time event.

White argues in very standard, garden-variety fundamentalist Protestant exegesis of James (especially chapter two) that it's all about the outward show or "proof" of faith rather than the nature of faith in and of itself. Thus he starts the chapter with his "Synopsis," writing: 

The entire purpose of James 2:14-26 can be summarized by the words, "show me." . . . This exhortation of Christians is not addressing how the ungodly are declared righteous before God, but how that declaration is shown outwardly in the Christian life. (p. 329)

This is the way that fundamentalist Protestants -- exemplified in almost "self-parody" terms by White -- try to escape the seemingly obvious "Catholic" thrust of the book, insofar as it ties faith and works more closely together than many Protestants through history have been comfortable with (the most famous case being Martin Luther, who came very close to tossing James out of the New Testament -- as if he had any authority to do so in the first place).


White, in seeking to make his case that St. James is discussing issues vis-à-vis faith and works in a more or less completely different sense from St. Paul, then examines James 2:21 and especially the translation of same:

James 2:21 (RSV, as throughout, when I cite Scripture) Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he offered his son Isaac upon the altar? 

Since "justified by works" sounds so "Catholic" and foreign to Reformed Protestant thinking, White wants to stress different translations, to "soften the blow" of the passage, so to speak, for Protestants. He even lists a Catholic in order to do this (on p. 345): Luke Timothy Johnson, who translates the verse [The Letter of James: A New Translation (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1995) , p. 239], as:

Was not our father Abraham shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds when he offered his son Isaac on the altar?

He offers the evangelical-biased NIV as a second rendering:

Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? (p. 345)

The problem is that these are non-literal translations, that don't even include the word or notion of "justification" in them (ostensibly, or speculatively, for fear of sounding "Catholic"). These are the translations what White chooses and highlights, with the utmost selectivity, for his polemical purposes. His aim is to demonstrate that the thrust is to demonstrate or "show" or outwardly manifest the interior faith and that this is solely what the justification by works spoken of in James is referring to: not that good works (enabled by God's grace and flowing from the faith life of a regenerate person) are, or could ever be (in White's mind) organically connected with justification.

Many other non-Catholic translations are very different from White's "favored few":

KJV / RSV / ASV / NASB / NRSV / NKJV . . . justified by works . . . 

NEB / REB Was it not by his action . . . that our father Abraham was justified?

Beck . . . get to be righteous on the basis of works . . . 

Goodspeed . . . made upright for his good deeds . . .

Moffatt . . . justified by what he did?

Wuest . . . vindicated by works [justified as to his claim to a living faith] . . . 

The following (less literal) translations even (rather delightfully for our argument) include an element of "in God's sight" that is directly contradictory to White's overall interpretation of James 2 (in man's sight rather than God's):

Barclay Was it not because of his actions that he was accepted by God as a good man? 

Phillips . . . his action which really justified him in God's sight . . .

Some translations have the "take" that White prefers, but they are clearly out of the mainstream. Williams has "shown to be upright." The Amplified Bible has "[shown to be] justified" but then it adds, "made acceptable to God -- by [his] works". Thus, the latter translation has one element that White favors ("shown") but also has the other that he seeks to deny: justification in God's eyes rather than merely outwardly in man's sight. Even the NIV's "considered righteous" doesn't make it clear whether it is man or God who does the considering.

Ignoring all of this overwhelming consensus of translation of James 2:21, White special pleads (as if repetition were rational argument):

James's use must be allowed to stand on its own. As a result, the translation . . . "shown to be righteous" or "considered righteous" (NIV) flows not from a precommitment to a theological perspective but from the context itself. (p. 346)

It's interesting, then, that 14 non-Catholic translations that I have found  (to his two, plus Williams and Amplified) didn't think it necessary to add this notion of "shown" to the passage: that White seems to think is essential to its meaning or emphasis. White then bolsters his argument that James and Paul are talking about two different things:

But we have already seen  that James is arguing against a use of the word "faith" (a deedless, dead, empty, useless faith that exists only in the realm of words and not of action) that is not paralleled in the Pauline passages that speak of how one is justified. Second, Paul speaks of justification "before God" (. . . Galatians 3:11) or "in His sight" (. . . Romans 3:20), while the context of James is . . . "show me." (p. 346)

Earlier in the book, in discussing Romans 3, White had stated:

To be justified before men is something obviously very different than to be justified before God. . . . This is important in considering James 2:14-26 . . . (p. 181)

The problem with this is that it doesn't accurately portray the totality of what St. Paul teaches about works. He, too, aligns them with faith, just as James does, and not simply in this "demonstration" sense for which White contends. For example:

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 

Paul is simultaneously discussing those who are justified or "righteous before God" and the relationship of works to that justification. A few verses earlier he had been discussing the final judgment (and eschatological salvation or justification), and presenting it in terms of good works or lack of same, rather than faith alone without works (he never mentions faith at all in the passage). For Paul, then, works are central in the equation in terms of God's judgment of who is saved and who isn't:

Romans 2:5-10 But by your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed. [6] For he will render to every man according to his works: [7] to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; [8] but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. [9] There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, [10] but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek.

 
It's the "doers" who will be justified in Romans 2:13. This is backwards, according to White's own soteriology. Paul needs to spend time reading more of Bishop White's books (or his Internet and Dividing Line rantings), to get up to speed. What he should have written, getting the chronology and the main categories correct, was:

Romans 2:13 (RFV: Revised Fundamentalist Version) For it is not the doers of the law who are justified, but the hearers of the law who are declared righteous before God and then become doers in gratefulness for their justification.

Poor Paul. He just doesn't get it. But thankfully for our sakes, James White does. Paul doesn't just state his shocking conclusion of Romans 2:13 in isolation. He continues the supposedly exclusive theme of St. James in other passages:

Romans 6:22-23 But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, eternal life. [23] For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

St. Paul again gets it backwards (it's frustrating and maddening how often he does this!). Somehow he mixes up justification and sanctification in a way that Catholics are notorious (in some circles) for doing.  Eternal life and salvation isn't the end of sanctification, but of [imputed] justification. Thus, this passage is supposed to read (to make it consistent with White's fundamentalist Reformed soteriology and non-troublesome):

Romans 6:22 (RFV) But now that you have been set free from sin and have attained eternal life as the end of justification alone, as slaves of God, the return you get is sanctification and its end, manifesting the proof of saving faith.

It's clear that if White is right in correcting Paul's soteriology, that he ought also to correct his epistles as well, so that the rest of us aren't led astray so often by him. St. Paul continues in his "Catholic" folly in his epistle to the Romans:

Romans 8:15-17 For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the spirit of sonship. When we cry, "Abba! Father!" [16] it is the Spirit himself bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, [17] and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him. 

Huh?!  Here, Paul informs us that being "heirs of God" is conditional on a work that we must do in order to be glorified with Christ: suffering with Him. That's not faith alone. It's not imputed justification and merely being declared righteous in a forensic, external sense. It's real action and real deeds: suffering, which is directly tied to being glorified with Christ (i.e., saved in the end, with heaven and glorified bodies as our reward). St. Peter echoes this theme of suffering with Christ as a condition of salvation:

1 Peter 4:12-13 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you. [13] But rejoice in so far as you share Christ's sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.

Alas, White decided to skip over Romans 6 altogether in his book about justification and soteriology; and also Romans 8:15-17 (starting with Romans 8:28 in his chapter 14) and 1 Peter 4:12-13: despite devoting five chapters and some 115 pages to various portions of Romans. Paul again ties works to ultimate salvation:

1 Timothy 6:18-19 They are to do good, to be rich in good deeds, liberal and generous, [19] thus laying up for themselves a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of the life which is life indeed. 

It is works which lay the "good foundation for the future, so that" a man may "take hold" of eternal life. This repeats what he wrote in 6:11-12, where he urges Timothy to "aim at righteousness, godliness" and "fight the good fight of the faith" so that he may "take hold of the eternal life" that he was called to when he confessed faith in Jesus. The confession is only the beginning. To "take hold" of the salvation requires works and strong perseverance. To reiterate how important works are in the overall equation of salvation, Paul states: "I charge you to keep the commandment unstained and free from reproach" (6:14). This is another passage that White didn't find time to exegete in his book. Perhaps in the sequel . . .

White moves along in James:

James 2:23 and the scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness"; and he was called the friend of God. 

He comments:

. . . Abraham's confession of faith is recorded in Genesis 15:6. God justified Abraham upon the exercise of that faith. The reality of the faith Abraham had, upon which he was justified, is demonstrated in the offering of Isaac. (p. 349)

Here he will run into several serious difficulties, based on his assumption that justification is a one-time event only. White believes that for Abraham, that one-time event is described in Genesis 15:6; cited in James 2:23, and also by St. Paul in Romans 4:3. The conundrum for White and the false notion of one-time justification is seen in the book of Hebrews:

Hebrews 11:8-10 By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to a place which he was to receive as an inheritance; and he went out, not knowing where he was to go. [9] By faith he sojourned in the land of promise, as in a foreign land, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, heirs with him of the same promise. [10] For he looked forward to the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.

The entire chapter is devoted to faith and the heroes of faith, and is a great Protestant favorite, for that reason. It starts out:

Hebrews 11:1-2 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. [2] For by it the men of old received divine approval.

Now, the "faith" referred to here is clearly that which follows justification. It must be so -- particularly in Reformed soteriology --, since for them, no man who is unregenerate of unjustified can exercise true faith. But -- here's the rub -- Hebrews 11 is hearkening back to Genesis 12, not Genesis 15:

Genesis 12:1-4 Now the LORD said to Abram, "Go from your country and your kindred and your father's house to the land that I will show you. [2] And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you, and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. [3] I will bless those who bless you, and him who curses you I will curse; and by you all the families of the earth shall bless themselves." [4] So Abram went, as the LORD had told him; and Lot went with him. Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed from Haran. 

The question then become: is this saving faith or justifying faith, that Abraham exercised at this juncture in his life? St. Paul seems to think so:

Galatians 3:8-14 And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, "In you shall all the nations be blessed." [9] So then, those who are men of faith are blessed with Abraham who had faith. [10] For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them." [11] Now it is evident that no man is justified before God by the law; for "He who through faith is righteous shall live"; [12] but the law does not rest on faith, for "He who does them shall live by them." [13] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us -- for it is written, "Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree" -- [14] that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith. 

This implies either a notion that justification can occur more than once, or some sense of ongoing justification, rather than one-time only. White shows awareness of this "particularly appealing" counter-argument, and mocks it by referring to "the ingenuity of man who is constantly attempting to find a way around God's way of justification" (p. 221). What is his response? Here it is:

The writer to the Hebrews says that Abraham acted in faith in responding to God's call to leave Ur of the Chaldees. However, saving faith always has an object, and the object of saving faith in Abraham's life was the promise given him in Genesis 15, not Genesis 12. (p. 222)

He digs in and ratchets up the polemics for effect:

Justification, then, must be a point-in-time declaration, not a process that is repeated, or else Romans 4:1-8 is not inspired Scripture. To say otherwise is to make a complete mockery of the entirety of Romans 4. (p. 223)

Unfortunately for White, there is a lot of disagreement with him, even from within his own Reformed camp. And the disagreement and exegesis contrary to White's take is not, I submit, motivated by a disdain for St. Paul or desire to mock Romans chapter four. Phil Gons has a doctorate in theology (a real one; not a fake doctorate such as White possesses). He describes himself as "a theologically conservative evangelical Christian who is committed to the essence of Reformed Protestantism." Phil wrote a heavily researched article, "When Was Abraham Justified?" He concluded:

. . . virtually all the commentators and theologians that I have come across who deal with the issue are in agreement that Abraham was justified by the events recorded at the beginning of Genesis 12. Luther, Calvin, Brakel, and Spurgeon defend a Genesis 12 justification, as do O. Palmer Robertson and Brian Vickers. . . . 

The view that holds that Abraham was not saved until Genesis 15 finds virtually no support at all throughout church history (at least not that I have been able to find in hours of research in scores of commentaries and hundreds of journals) . . .

Very odd, isn't it? Could James White possibly be wrong??!!! Such a momentous, unheard-of event would stop the presses, the movement of the earth, and swiftly bring about the Apocalypse, for sure. But there it is! In a 20-page Word document accompanying the article, Gons assembles an impressive array of supporting sources for his contention. Here are some highlights, with my own added emphases in blue color:

John Calvin

We must now notice the circumstance of time . Abram was justified by faith many years after he had been called by God; after he had left his country a voluntary exile, rendering himself a remarkable example of patience and of continence; after he had entirely dedicated himself to sanctity and after he had, by exercising himself in the spiritual and external service of God, aspired to a life almost angelical. It therefore follows, that even to the end of life, we are led towards the eternal kingdom of God by the righteousness of faith.

On which point many are too grossly deceived. For they grant, indeed, that the righteousness which is freely bestowed upon sinners and offered to the unworthy is received by faith alone; but they restrict this to a moment of time, so that he who at the first obtained justification by faith, may afterwards be justified by good works. By this method, faith is nothing else  than the beginning of righteousness, whereas righteousness itself consists in a continual course of works. But they who thus trifle must be altogether insane. For if the angelical uprightness of Abram faithfully cultivated through so many years, in one uniform course, did not prevent him from fleeing to faith, for the sake of obtaining righteousness; where upon earth besides will such perfection be found, as may stand in God’s sight?

Therefore, by a consideration of the time in which this was said to Abram, we certainly gather, that the righteousness of works is not to be substituted for the righteousness of faith, in any such way, that one should perfect what the other has begun; but that holy men are only justified by faith, as long as they live in the world. If any one object, that Abram previously believed God, when he followed Him at His call, and committed himself to His direction and guardianship, the solution is ready; that we are not here told when Abram first began to be justified, or to believe in God; but that in this one place it is declared, or related, how he had been justified through his whole life . For if Moses had spoken thus immediately on Abram’s first vocation, the cavil of which I have spoken would have been more specious; namely, that the righteousness of faith was only initial (so to speak) and not perpetual. But now since after such great progress, he is still said to be justified by faith, it thence easily appears that the saints are justified freely even unto death.

(Calvin's Commentaries, Genesis 15:6)

The Lord, on the contrary, declares, that he imputed Abraham’s faith for righteousness (
(Institutes of the Christian Religion, III, 14:11)

Martin Luther

Therefore if you should ask whether Abraham was righteous before this time, my answer is: He was righteous because he believed God. But here the Holy Spirit wanted to attest this expressly, since the promise deals with a spiritual Seed. He did so in order that you might conclude on the basis of a correct inference that those who accept this Seed, or those who believe in Christ, are righteous. Abraham’s faith was extraordinary, since he left his country when commanded to do so and became an exile; but we are not all commanded to do the same thing. Therefore in that connection Moses does not add: “Abraham believed God, and this was reckoned to him as righteousness.” But in the passage before us he makes this addition when he is speaking about the heavenly Seed. He does so in order to comfort the church of all times. He is saying that those who, with Abraham, believe this promise are truly righteous. Here, in the most appropriate place, the Holy Spirit wanted to set forth expressly and clearly the statement that righteousness is nothing else than believing God when He makes a promise.

(“Genesis 15:6,” Lectures on Genesis: Chapters 15–20, vol. 3, Luther’s Works, ed. Jaroslav Jan Pelikan, trans. George V. Schick; Saint Louis: Concordia, 1961, 3:19–20)

New Bible Commentary

Abram accepted God’s reassurance, he believed the LORD (6). The verbal form suggests an ongoing activity, i.e. he kept believing the promise, he kept relying on the Lord. So God credited it to him as righteousness. Righteousness is that state of acceptance by God which comes from perfect obedience to the law. Abram’s failure to fulfil the law’s demands completely is obvious in Genesis, yet his faith in God’s promise of a child is here said to count as righteousness. For Paul, this shows that faith, not works, is the prerequisite to acceptance by God (Gal. 3:6–14). Jas. 2:18–24 and Heb. 11:8–9 point out that Abraham’s faith was proved genuine by his good works. This ‘faith that works’ is central to the Christian understanding of salvation and upright living.

(D. A. Carson, R. T. France, J. A. Motyer, and G. J . Wenham, eds., “15:1–21 The Covenant Promise,” New Bible Commentary: 21st Century Edition [Leicester, England; Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 1994], Gen 15:1)

Allen P. Ross / Bible Knowledge Commentary

Genesis 15:6 provides an important note, but it does not pinpoint Abram’s conversion. That occurred years earlier when he left Ur. (The form of the Heb. word for “believed” shows that his faith did not begin after the events recorded in vv. 1–5.) Abram’s faith is recorded here because it is foundational for making the covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant did not give Abram redemption; it was a covenant made with Abram who had already believed and to whom righteousness had already been imputed.

(Allen P. Ross, “Genesis,” The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures , ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck [Wheaton: Victor Books, 1983–85], 1:55)

Gordon J. Wenham

The verbal form . . . “he believed” probably indicates repeated or continuing action. Faith was Abram’s normal response to the LORD’s words.

(Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15 , vol. 1, Word Biblical Commentary [Dallas: Word, 2002], 329; comment on Genesis 15:6)

Charles Spurgeon

When he was comforted, Abram received an open declaration of his justification. I take it, beloved friends, that our text does not intend to teach us that Abram was not justified before this time. Faith always justifies whenever it exists, and as soon as it is exercised; its result follows immediately, and is not an aftergrowth needing months of delay. The moment a man truly trusts his God he is justified.

(Charles Haddon Spurgeon, “Justification by Faith—Illustrated by Abram’s Righteousness,” vol. 14, The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons [Albany, OR: Ages Software, 1998] )

Gons comments on Hebrews 11:

The author of Hebrews, in setting forth examples of faith to be followed, intentionally begins the story of Abraham with Genesis 12, when he “by faith” obeyed the Lord, believing His promises to him to be reliable. Had Abraham still been an idolater (cf. Joshua 24:2) and his faith something less than genuine, surely the author of Hebrews would have cited Genesis 15 or some point later in the narrative as the start of Abraham’s exemplary faith.

Ironically enough, White's derisive comments against the Catholic view of ongoing or multiple instances of justification, also hit in large part the commentators above: Calvin, Luther, Spurgeon et al. They're all trumped by the Interpreter of all Interpreters, and the Final WORD in biblical exegesis: Bishop James White. So much the worse for them. Here is White's opinion of views other than one-time forensic justification:

. . . the argument carries weight for many who are seeking a way out of the biblical teaching on the subject.

The fundamental error of the argument thus presented is really quite simple: it is not an argument from Scripture; it is an argument against Scripture. . . . To argue against an apostle of the Lord Jesus Christ only shows that one's theology is in error fro its very inception.

. . . Paul's entire point is based upon justification being a forensic declaration that takes place one time in the believer's life. If, in fact, justification is ongoing, or repetitive, or iterative, then Paul's entire point collapses . . . (p. 222)

White gets to James 2:24 on his page 350:

James 2:24 You see that a man is justified by works and not by faith alone. 

Once again, he wants to play the game of highly selective Bible translation, citing Luke Timothy Johnson, who translates, "shown to be righteous on the basis of deeds." And once again, in the interest of "full disclosure" and attempted objectivity, I will provide the reader with a much wider array of Bible translations for James 2:24:

KJV / ASV / Wuest . . . by works a man is justified . . .

RSV / NASB / NRSV / NKJV . . . justified by works . . . 

Phillips A man is justified before God by what he does as well as by what he believes.

NIV . . . justified by what he does . . .

NEB . . . justified by deeds . . .

Williams . . . shown to be upright by his good deeds . . .

Beck . . a man gets to be righteous on the basis of his works . . .

Goodspeed . . . made upright by his good deeds . . .

Amplified . . . justified (pronounced righteous before God) through what he does . . .

Moffatt . . . by what he does a man is justified . . . 

REB You see then it is by action and not by faith alone that a man is justified.

Barclay . . . it is in consequence of his actions that God reckons a man to be a good man, and not only in consequence of faith.

We see in several translations the idea that this justification by works (as well as by faith) is in the eyes of God, not just man, as White wants to argue and eisegete, according to his false fundamentalist presuppositions: Phillips: "before God," Amplified: "pronounced righteous before God," Barclay: "that God reckons a man . . ."

It's important to reiterate that Catholics do not believe in salvation by works. We deny salvation by faith alone and also by works alone. We assert salvation by grace alone through faith, expressed and "lived out" by the "obedience of faith" shown by faith- and grace-based good works. I wrote in the section of my book, Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths (2009), entitled, "Salvation is not by works alone" (pp. 166-167):

This “justification by works” is not by itself, any more than faith is operative by itself. James writes of Abraham being “justified by works” (2:21) but this can't be ripped from context, so as to distort his meaning, since in the verse immediately before, he ties faith organically in with works, and he does the same in the verse immediately after, as he does in the larger context of 2:14, 17-18 and 2:26. They simply can't be separated.Likewise, when justification by works is asserted again in 2:24, it is qualified in 2:26, by connecting faith with it, and in the larger context before the statement, also in 2:14, 17-18, 20, 22. The works can't possibly be interpreted as on their own, then, without doing massive violence to the contextual meaning and teaching.The same applies to 2:25 and the statement about Rahab the harlot being “justified by works” -- it is qualified in the same way in context, by the consideration of 2:14, 17-18, 20, 22, 26. Moreover, salvation by works alone is flatly and explicitly denied by St. Paul in Ephesians 2:8-9 and 2 Timothy 1:9, and the same is strongly implied in Romans 11:5-6 (see the section “We are saved through grace”).For the Catholic, justification is not the same thing as salvation or the attainment of eternal life. It can be lost or rejected by means of human free will and disobedience. So, to assert “justification by works,” even in a qualified sense, is not at all the same as asserting salvation by works. Therefore, it is scripturally improper to assert either salvation by works alone or salvation by faith alone. They are never taught in Holy Scripture, and are both denied more than once. Justification by faith or justification by works can be asserted in a limited sense, as Scripture does: always understood as hand-in-hand with the other two elements in the grace-faith-works triumvirate.

White takes note (p. 351) of the clause "you see." He argues (garden-variety polemical stuff here) that this proves some big change of category, compared to Pauline utterances on justification. He had expressed this more clearly in his comment on James 2:22:

Ironically, James says, "you see that . . .," showing the demonstrative element he is pushing into the forefront. . . . James wishes his hearers to see something from the example of Abraham's obedience to God in the offering of Isaac. We are to see Abraham's deeds . . . (p. 348)

This is equal parts silly and insubstantial. We need only go to St. Paul to show that there is no distinction here that White reads into the text for polemical purposes:

Galatians 3:6-7 Thus Abraham "believed God, and it was reckoned to him as righteousness." [7] So you see that it is men of faith who are the sons of Abraham.

That passage has to do with justification before God, as White himself agrees; yet it still contains the clause, "you see." Therefore, the latter is no proof in and of itself that James is discussing a different notion altogether: merely justification "before men" -- to be observed as the proof and fruit of genuine faith -- rather than before God.

White then makes short work of Rahab's stated "justification":

James 2:25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the harlot justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way? 

He merely assumes and states what he needs to prove (which is no rational argument, but rather, essentially mere "preaching"):

The evidentiary nature of this justification is again clearly seen: no one would argue that God justifies prostitutes on the basis of hiding spies. Instead, the faith she had come to possess in the God of Israel manifested itself in her willingness to act in accordance with her confession found in these words: "the Lord your God, He is God in heaven above and on earth beneath" (Joshua 2:11 NASB). (p. 352)

The obvious problem with this "exegesis" is that it is not exegesis at all; it is eisegesis: reading into Scripture what is not stated there. White is big on endlessly pointing this out if anyone else does it (and of course, according to him, Catholics always do). Earlier in his book he decried this sort of thing, noting:

. . . the presence of human traditions that influence and often determine the reading of the text. (p. 129)

The text doesn't say she was justified based on her profession that he notes (though that is a quite reasonable supposition to hold; I'm just noting that the Bible doesn't directly assert it). The text says she was "justified by works when she received the messengers".

Thus, White has the choice of exegeting the text as it stands, or ignoring it. He chooses the latter, because his prior theological views disallow him to do any differently. He is doing exactly what he condemned in his statement above. It doesn't matter what the Bible says: he'll quickly discard that if it goes against his prior views, which lie external to the Bible, and in several places contradict it.

Catholics believe we are justified by faith and also by grace-based works done by the regenerate believer in conjunction with faith, as a co-laborer with God (1 Cor 3:9; 15:10; 2 Cor 6:1). White doesn't like the "works" part of that biblical equation, so he has to construct several desperate "arguments" in order to undermine it or explain it away at every turn. There is a word for that: sophistry. The Bible elsewhere freely places Rahab's faith and works together. They are of a piece: neither can or should be ignored:

Hebrews 11:31 By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish with those who were disobedient, because she had given friendly welcome to the spies. 

Notice the "because" in the verse? Moreover, it is not foreign Scripture, to expressly state that works are the cause of justification or even a central criterion for eternal life. We've already noted this in Paul, above. Here it is again (repetition being a good teaching device):

Romans 2:13 For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. 

Indeed, final judgment in Scripture is always -- repeat, ALWAYS -- associated with works (good and bad), and scarcely with faith at all. When we read Bible passages on the last judgment, it is works that are being discussed. I have collected fifty of these passages myself. So why are Protestants so reluctant to acknowledge this? Why can't they "go" where the Bible freely, easily does, so often? Oftentimes the Bible discusses faith in isolation, in relation to justification and salvation. Other times, it discusses works in isolation, in the same way. Both are factors. So why does White feel the necessity of having to utterly ignore what James 2:25 plainly states, and skip over to another verse so he can preach his unbiblical, fundamentalist "faith alone" doctrine? How are Rahab or Abraham being "justified by works" in James fundamentally different from what the following five passages out of my collected fifty (four from Jesus Himself) assert?:

Matthew 25:31-46 "When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at his right hand, `Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.' Then the righteous will answer him, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naked and clothe thee? And when did we see thee sick or in prison and visit thee?' And the King will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.' Then he will say to those at his left hand, `Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.' Then they also will answer, `Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?' Then he will answer them, `Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me.' And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Luke 3:9 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

John 5:29 . . .  those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

1 Peter 1:17 . . . who judges each one impartially according to his deeds . . .

Revelation 22:12 Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense, to repay every one for what he has done.

I'd like to agree with a statement of White's in closing. Of course I'd apply it differently, but the statement itself remains true:

When Paul and James both address Christian behavior and Christian life, they speak as one . . . When we allow James to speak for himself . . . his intentions and purposes are clear. (p. 354)

Amen!

Dialogue on the Comparison of Current Muslim and 16th Century Calvinist Iconoclasm (vs. David Scott)

This exchange is derived from a discussion about a link I posted on Facebook (9-27-13): an article entitled, "Islamists Burn Statues and Crosses in Syrian Churches." I made a remark when I posted it: "If they keep this up they'll be as bad as the early Calvinist iconoclasts who smashed stained glass, statues (including of Jesus), crucifixes, even organs, ridiculously whitewashed walls . . ." That didn't go down well with Dave Scott, a Protestant Facebook friend, so we had a vigorous discussion about it, and I challenged him to back up one of his particular (rather outrageous) claims (haven't heard back on that, as of this writing, ten days later). His words will be in blue.
* * * * *

Of course there's no mention in this thread of how like Jesus the RC authorities were at the same time. Statues and buildings can be rebuilt but no excuse for murder from either side. I think what radical Islamism proposes, in terms of destruction, far exceeds the anti-idolatry zeal of the Proddies.  

Even that is debatable. Catholicism has survived in places like Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Iraq, whereas it is virtually nonexistent in places like Sweden [1% of the population], Denmark [less than 1%], Norway [1.6%], and other long-since Protestantized countries. So Protestants were more successful in wiping it out locally (and even often more intolerant) than Muslims have been.

Only in England can we see the abomination of a man who simply held the faith that was the norm in England for a thousand years, having his heart torn out while he is still alive, and intestines slowly extracted from his body . . .

Which is why we should be healing rather than justifying the past ... old skins etc.

I was simply noting a fact of what Calvinists did to Catholic churches (Catholics -- or even Lutherans -- weren't going around decapitating statues of Christ, etc.). Our churches and monasteries were also stolen by the thousands by the Protestants (especially in England). Luther himself lived in an old convent, for heaven's sake. Nice free rent there . . .

Just statues man, really. There were no Protestant 'extras' to destroy so it's a bit one-sided in its possibility. What was worse was the atrocities on both sides.

You miss the point again. I made a simple comparison to the historical fact that the early Calvinists used to do exactly what the jihadists are doing now (i.e., what was mentioned in this article). They murdered, too (the Anabaptists, who were simply taking the Protestant principle of private judgment and supremacy of the conscience to a further extent than Calvin and Luther did).

Catholics killed folks, too (of course, ho-hum). But again, I submit that there is more manifest hypocrisy for Protestants to do so because of:

1) the myth that they were supposedly "tolerant" in a way that Catholics supposedly were not.

2) the myth that they were "reformers" of the inexorably, irredeemably corrupt Catholic Church (that had forsaken the gospel and adopted Pelagisnism, etc. etc., ad nauseum) and were, thus, supposedly of a much higher spiritual caliber (which Luther denied many times).

3) their recent origin, that made it ridiculous for them to claim to be preeminent authorities on anything, let alone agents of God's wrath, etc.

I miss the point? No, I think you decontextualise because you're trying to elucidate the wrongs of Calvinism but history does not happen in a vacuum. I'm not bothered about "myths" but re 1, I think if you were to count numbers you'd find that Protestants were relatively more tolerant.
 
re 2 no, they were men caught in their time, trying to do a better job than a 'decadent' central Church was doing at the time in terms of raising the standard.
 
re 3 again, the Holy Spirit is crucial, time and tradition can be rendered useless and idiotes agrammatos can be elevated. God does the elevating.

My query is whether either denomination acted as Jesus would have had them act and that both have done the Gospel a disservice in many ways .... and, crucially, have advanced it in many good ways too.

"So Protestants were more successful in wiping it out locally" - or the people were more disposed to the Protestant form of ministry. One could say the same of a lack of Protestantism in some Southern European countries and thereby liken the RC authorities to religious fanatics.

Yep, they fanatically wiped out the paganism that preceded Catholicism in those areas: a bit different from wiping out apostolic Christianity.

Survival may have meant dhimmitude in the countries you mention - the Protestants may not have been recognised as "Christians" and executed instead.

Neither has attained Jesus' standard in behavior, for sure (which we would fully expect, given biblical teachings about the sinfulness of men). But the Catholic Church alone has maintained apostolic doctrine and morality in their fullness, which suggests an extraordinary protection from the Holy Spirit and outpouring of God's grace that is singular (though not exclusive).

. . . and thereby has drifted further and more abhorrently from its revealed truth?

"Only in England can we see the abomination of a man who simply held the faith that was the norm in England for a thousand years, having his heart torn out while he is still alive, and intestines slowly extracted from his body . . ." a reference to?

Hanging, drawing, and quartering. See massive documentation on my web page: Protestantism: Historic Persecution and Intolerance.
As for "only in England" ... I have my doubts !

Dave 'they' also fanatically wiped out millions of people who didn't agree with them ... that is the historical context. The LORD is broad-shouldered enough to cope with any denomination that honours Him.

OK Dave, you've published - but how selective have you been?

Extremely selective. I dealt solely with Protestant atrocities, precisely because we rarely if ever hear about them. I was "balancing the record": as I have explained countless times when I get this garden-variety objection.

How objective have you been?

In reporting the facts, pretty objective (in expressing my disdain for all this, not at all). But as I said, I was deliberately documenting Protestant stuff.

HDQ precedes Protestantism - it's how Wallace died. It was, if you wish, an RC practice - personally I think it has nothing to do with Jesus.

St. Edmund Campion (as an example), was hanged, drawn and quartered at Tyburn on December 1, 1581, during Elizabeth's reign. He was a martyr along with at least 311 others in her reign that I have documented.  

If I think that you, as a Church, are corrupt and not properly feeding me Jesus then if I try to go somewhere else but that's not an option because 'you' are everywhere else ten what is wrong with seeking the LORD in an assembly that is free from the politicking and excesses of the time?

If the LORD was not with it it would have failed after a very short time.

That's disproven by the rapid success of Islam when it began: overtaking Christianity in most of the places where it spread.

Islam is not bearing the LORD's name or claiming to be authoritative on Him. He would have snuffed out Protestantism if it was contra His Grace. 

He doesn't have to. It has largely snuffed itself out, by its perpetual process of becoming liberal and forsaking its own historic doctrines over time.

as the RC Church had done in its time ... and continues to do so in some of its branches. Selective polemic again Dave - your prerogative because its your your thread.

But what is true in it (and that is a lot of it) is blessed by God. It's just sad that so much error is also taught in the name of Protestantism.

Islam exists by virtue of His permissive will as it does not advance the Gospel.

* * *


"Dave 'they' also fanatically wiped out millions of people who didn't agree with them ... that is the historical context."

Great. Prove that from reputable historians. Thank you.

Define "reputable" ... ones that advance your theories?

One who is renowned among his peers in his field. Good luck! I don't envy your task at all. But we all wait with baited breath.

Don't wait "with baited breath" .... or with sarcasm, or first person plural since the latter makes you appear .... well, you fill in the blank

Since you have a head start on the subject matter ... try [link]. I've just downloaded it and will go looking for lacunae myself. 

Now get to work and document how Catholics killed "millions" who disagreed with them.

As to your 'command'/exhortation perhaps you should research the RC killings and I'll do the Protestant ones - planks from own eyes perhaps - more pleasing to the LORD? ... and done in a spirit of confession and reconciliation?

Nice try at diversion. You made the claim about my Church; now back it up or shut up about that and never say it again. If it's true, you can document it from historians. If it isn't, you have borne false witness, which is serious sin.

Aggressive Dave, and it was not diversion but maybe your declination was. Is it "your" Church or is it the LORD's. [?]

I am God! Didn't you know that? I couldn't have possibly meant it in any other sense, such as, e.g., "I am a member of this Church; it is my Church."

False witness can also be a sin of omission, no? Are you saying there were no RC atrocities? 

You don't read very well. Scroll up.

I read okay Dave, I also re-iterate, as do you. Of course I got the sense - doh ! 

* * *

Were they more or less extensive than the Protestant ones? The RC Church is not made more righteous by Protestant atrocities and vice versa - both are to our shame. 

* * *


Yes Dave, I live here, I know of the wars here and in Europe - we still have legacies of it.

I'm sure there are Catholics martyrs just like there were Protestant ones - did the Church of Rome behave radically differently? = No.

I have no problem with you elucidating Protestant atrocities especially if your target audience is unaware of them. Maybe in Europe we're a bit more versed in the atrocities of both/either sides because of the legacies we have lived with.

However in a post about Islam, you could have said Christian atrocities or at least delineated the different rationales. 

Considering iconoclasm itself, there ain't much. The Muslims picked up their iconoclasm from Monophysites and other heretics who had adopted that false notion. Calvinists later picked up the same motifs and revived them.

1) Muslims smash statues and crosses because they don't believe an image can represent God or bring His actions to mind.

2) Calvinists smashed statues and crosses (and don't have statues in their churches or crucifixes) because they don't believe an image can represent God or bring His actions to mind.

Not much difference there that I can see. The immediate rationale is the same. I have talked to Calvinists today who think that crosses are idols. I wrote a paper about it: "Calvin, Zwingli, and Bullinger Regarded Statues of Christ and Crucifixes as Idols (Calvin Also Rejected Bare Crosses)".

Calvin also thought musical instruments in church were idols (this is why Calvinists smashed organs; fortunately Bach was a Lutheran).

Destroying Christ's reputation was not the Protestant agenda.

Correct. They only went after statues or stained glass that portrayed our Lord, who is the "icon of the invisible God", and crucifixes that recall to mind what He did for all of us, so that we can be saved. For these guys, those were bad things, and that is wickedness: calling good evil.

Not as wicked as killing people who differed from you.

No kidding. No one is saying it was. That was never the topic of this thread (which is iconoclasm).  

* * * 

I don't know if some historian could actually prove how many churches were smashed like this by Calvinists compared to the Muslims. We know that many thousands of Catholic churches were subjected to it in the 16th century. There had to be more church buildings in Europe at that time compared to in Egypt and Syria now, where Christians are a tiny minority. So that being the case, Calvinists likely (I would guess) destroyed (in the iconoclastic sense) more in sheer numbers.

Calvinists stole churches after they smashed all the best art in them, whereas Muslims usually destroy them altogether, but sometimes they convert them to mosques (e.g., Hagia Sophia in Istanbul, that I have a picture of on the top of my Facebook author page).

I'm not condoning vandalism - which is what it was ... and many spiritual places were destroyed in Scotland and Ireland. However, idols/statues can always be rebuilt, recarved .... unless you've got the gift of Resurrection then neither side should have been killing anyone which if either side had ... then I doubt they would have done as they did.

Context Dave - which came first -the 'desecration' of idols/statues or the killings?

Must go - happy to parley a bit later !

Have a good one.


* * * * *


 

Dialogue on Purgatory in the Bible and in St. Ambrose (vs. Bethany Kerr)

  This friendly and constructive exchange took place on my Facebook page, under a post from 24 September 2013. Bethany is an evangelical Protestant with Calvinist inclinations. Her words will be in blue.

* * * * *
Original post:

NO BIBLICAL EVIDENCE FOR BODILY MORTIFICATION ON BEHALF OF OTHERS? THAT WOULD BE BIG NEWS TO THE PROPHET EZEKIEL

EZEKIEL 4:4-8 (RSV) "Then lie upon your left side, and I will lay the punishment of the house of Israel upon you; for the number of the days that you lie upon it, you shall bear their punishment. [5] For I assign to you a number of days, three hundred and ninety days, equal to the number of the years of their punishment; so long shall you bear the punishment of the house of Israel. [6] And when you have completed these, you shall lie down a second time, but on your right side, and bear the punishment of the house of Judah; forty days I assign you, a day for each year. [7] And you shall set your face toward the siege of Jerusalem, with your arm bared; and you shall prophesy against the city. [8] And, behold, I will put cords upon you, so that you cannot turn from one side to the other, till you have completed the days of your siege."

But Ezekiel was bearing an earthly punishment for the living... He did nothing to remove punishment for the dead.

Also, he was a prophet. Prophets had to do many things that would not be instructed to believers today. (Such as, making cakes over dung, keeping silent after a wife dies, or marrying prostitutes and staying with them throughout their prostitution). From my understanding, prophets commonly did things like this to paint a picture.
In this particular argument I wasn't claiming that he was doing something for the dead. But that is not at all unbiblical, either. Paul talks about those being baptized for the dead (1 Cor 15:29), and makes a direct reference to 2 Maccabees 12:44 (KJV): "For if he had not hoped that they that were slain should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead." I believe he was referring to penance for the dead, per the plausible interpretation of St. Francis de Sales.

The Apostle Paul also prayed for the dead (Onesiphorus).

I agree that prophets do weird things; no argument there. My favorite is Isaiah going around naked. One of my female friends wisecracked about, "why couldn't God pick a younger guy to do that?" :-)

But again, my target in this post was those who think such a thing is unbiblical, period: that it is impermissible and not something God would want done: even if only by a prophet, who is often commanded to do odd stuff. God can't command anything that is intrinsically wrong.

LOL @your Isaiah comment!

I would love to one day discuss these things with you more but would not want to derail your thread. I enjoy reading your posts (even if I do disagree on theology)! And you seem like someone not offended by discussion as many can be, which is nice.

It's fine, Bethany. This is on-topic. Feel free. Thanks for your very kind words, and you appear to be one who can disagree amiably, too. Good for you! I'm honored that you like reading my posts.

Yes, I definitely enjoy disagreeing amiably. (I'm a lightweight and you're a heavyweight but that won't stop me from trying.) LOL

I do wonder why you believe that Onesiphorus is an example of prayers being made for the dead. I don't see that in scripture. I saw how he made a prayer that he hoped he would find mercy on "that day".... But I don't see any reason to believe that Onesiphorus was dead at the time he prayed this. It seems speculative.

I could pray that God would find mercy on someone who wronged a friend of mine (on that day) but my prayer could have no effect once the person was already dead. If they are born again, they are already a recipient of Gods mercy... But if not, there is nothing that can be done after death. They are already recipients of Gods wrath. The time has ended for prayers on their behalf.

But you're forgetting purgatory. :-)

Well okay, purgatory... Where do you find it in scripture?

I guess I should begin with that my beliefs are very similar to Calvinism, although I do not know enough about it to be absolutely certain.

Here is a paper where I cite many Protestants on the Onesiphorus issue:
 
Onesiphorus (2 Tim 1:16-18; 4:19): Explicit New Testament Example of the Apostle Paul Praying for the Dead (Explanations of Protestant Commentaries)

I find indications of purgatory in lots o' places. See: Biblical Evidence for Purgatory: 25 Bible Passages.

I will read it tonight and get back with you soon. Thanks, Dave.

Cool. My papers will put you to sleep, though!

No they are interesting! I actually read through much of your blog right after you added me as friend a year or so ago.

Isn't that something? Wow!

I wanted to add that there is actually a Protestant argument for prayers for the dead, that presupposes the non-existence of purgatory (which would be used by, e.g., Lutherans, who do so):

Since God is outside of time, prayers can be "retroactive"; in other words, one could pray for a dead person, and God could apply the prayer to the person outside of time. Thus, you could actually pray for the person's salvation after he or she died. God would simply apply it on the person's behalf. We can do that since we don't know a person's destiny for sure. Prayer is always good and will have some positive result.

The first thing I noticed in your article regarding purgatory (since this is the heart of the issue) is that you brought up origin and Ambrose, and that they referred to purgatory, using Psalm 66:12 as a proof text.

I do not see Psalm 66:12 in context as speaking of the afterlife at all:

8 Bless our God, O peoples;
let the sound of his praise be heard,
9 who has kept our soul among the living
and has not let our feet slip.
10 For you, O God, have tested us;
you have tried us as silver is tried.
11 You brought us into the net;
you laid a crushing burden on our backs;
12 you let men ride over our heads;
we went through fire and through water;
yet you have brought us out to a place of abundance.

It is poetic speak, typical of psalms, but it also is speaking of the conflicts and trials of God's people, while on earth. God brings us through many trials, through "fire and water", and yet he has brought us out to a "place of abundance". I don't see any reason to assume this text is referring to the afterlife, especially if you go on to read the rest of the chapter. There is no indication there of purgatory, only speculation.

Also, it seems that Catholics distance themselves from many of the things Origen believed, and most places that I have read from Catholic sources say that Origen didn't really have a good grasp on what purgatory actually / was/ in the first place. 
 
I don't know what he is quoted as saying that proves this verse to be referring to a place where your sins are removed from you after death, by fire, but I am sure that his beliefs were quite different than the Catholic church's beliefs of today. Even if he were to have believed it the same way, that would not be proof of the doctrine of purgatory...I mean, Tertullian became a Monatist, but I doubt the Catholic church uses quotes from that era of his life to promote their teachings, since they considered him to be a heretic after that point. I say that to say that just because one of the early church fathers believed it, doesn't make it true. It must be supported Biblically.

As for Ambrose, Catholics seem to use this statement by him to be proof that he believed in purgatory:
"Give, O Lord, rest to Thy servant Theodosius, that rest Thou hast prepared for Thy saints. . . . I loved him, therefore will I follow him to the land of the living; I will not leave him till by my prayers and lamentations he shall be admitted unto the holy mount of the Lord, to which his deserts call him"

Did you know that this is taken out of its context to give a false impression of what ambrose was saying? Only a bit earlier in his quote, this is what he says:

"The flesh, therefore, returns to earth, the soul hastens to the rest which is above..to which it is said, "Return to thy rest, oh my soul" (Ps. csvi 7) (Sec 31)

Into which rest, Theodosius hastenened to enter, and go into the city of jerusalem, of which it is said; and the kings of the earth shall bring their glory into it. (Apoc xxi 24)

That is true glory which is there assumed; that is the most blessed kingdom, which is there possessed, whither the apostle hastened, saying; we are confident therefore, and willing rather to be absent from the body ,and present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. (2 cor vs 8,9)

or well pleasing to him, (sec 32)

Freed, therefore, from the doubtful contest, theodosius, of august memory, now enjoys perpetual light, endless tranquility, and according to those things which he hath done in his body, rejoices in the fruits of divine remuneration. "
I had to type that out because I could not find a text to copy and paste, and didn't have much time so please forgive grammatical errors. You can see the rest of the text here: Roman Misquotation: or Certain Passages from the Fathers [Richard T. P. Pope]

I know I've only addressed such a small part so far. Got to go to bed though. OK I was wrong. I have to address one more thing before bed. I'll leave you alone then.

From your article:

Isaiah 6:5-7 And I said: "Woe is me! for I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts." Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin forgiven."

This passage is a noteworthy example of what happens when men experience God's presence directly. An immediate recognition of one's own unholiness occurs, along with the corresponding feeling of inadequacy. Like Isaiah, we must all undergo a self-conscious and voluntary purging upon approaching God more closely than in this present life."

I would just mention here that Isaiah is not yet dead- and he is in his physical body- which is different from our souls being separated from our body upon death. This cannot be compared accurately to our experience after having died and being separated from this "body of death". To be absent in the body is to be present with Christ.

I absolutely agree that if we came face to face with God at this moment, we would fall to our knees, absolutely ashamed of our sinfulness and being frightened to our core. But we are not yet separated from our bodies, which have a nature of sin. Our spirit and flesh are in constant war until death causes their separation.

Replying to your last comment first:

Again, I didn't claim that Isaiah was dead, but it is irrelevant to my point, which was how we react when we meet God: we feel unworthy and want to make ourselves clean. That is the main notion that lies behind purgatory.

Protestants and Catholics agree that we have to be actually sinless to enter into heaven. We just think it'll be more of a process to get clean: not an instant "zap"! So we agree on the essentials (gotta be clean and sin-free) and disagree on secondary elements (how long it will take and how painful).

Psalm 66:12 doesn't necessarily have to be about the afterlife itself. It illustrates the principle of purging and cleansing that many biblical passages illustrate. We know that that process is a "biblical" one that God does all the time. So it stands to reason that He will after we die and enter literally into God's presence in heaven. Even a guy like C. S. Lewis agrees with that. He believed in purgatory.

I am sure that his beliefs were quite different than the Catholic church's beliefs of today.
I am, too, since all doctrines develop (including trinitarianism and Christology, very much so in the early centuries). But the essence remains the same.
Even if he were to have believed it the same way, that would not be proof of the doctrine of purgatory
That's correct. The value of the fathers is if most of them believed one thing: then we conclude that the belief is apostolic in origin.

...I mean, Tertullian became a Monatist, but I doubt the Catholic church uses quotes from that era of his life to promote their teachings, since they considered him to be a heretic after that point.
Yep; it's worthless to cite his Montanist writings.

I say that to say that just because one of the early church fathers believed it, doesn't make it true. It must be supported Biblically.

We agree. This is why I cited 25 passages in my book. I merely noted that various fathers agreed with the interpretation. That's important because how the fathers interpreted gives us a big indication of the teachings of the early Church and what the Bible teaches. It is interpreted authoritatively by the Church and eminent men in the Church: the fathers. 

Re: St. Ambrose and purgatory: I couldn't find an entire text of the funeral sermon in question, and I don't trust anti-Catholic polemical works from 1840 to give me an accurate or anywhere near objective analysis of it. But I can cite the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church: a non-Catholic work, in its article on purgatory (pp. 1144-1145):

A more developed doctrine is taught by St. Ambrose, who asserts that the souls of the departed await the end of time in different habitations, their fate varying acc. to their works, though some are already with Christ.

This is exactly what we would expect to see from Ambrose, in his time period. See primary evidence from St. Ambrose and analysis from the dissertation, Prayer for the Dead from Ambrose to Gregory the Great (by Laszlo Illes Kaulics): pp. 10-18.

I have three pages of citations in my book, The Quotable Augustine , on purgatory (from City of God and the Enchiridion) and four pages documenting his views on alms, Masses, offerings, and prayer for the dead.

I'll read the link you provided and get back with you! Wish I had more time... With six kids, it's harder and harder to sit and write like i would like sometimes!

Six kids! God bless you. The most important job in the world . . .


From the link you provided, it appears that Ambrose was not very consistent in his views on the afterlife.
From the article:

When speaking about the eschatology of Ambrose one should note that he does not have a fully developed and consistent theory of salvation and damnation mechanisms in the next world, whether saints go to heaven immediately or stay in some place of repose.

But this isn't surprising, as there are many church fathers, many of which disagreed with each other on a multitude of theological teachings....so I think the only way to know for sure is to see whether something is explicitly taught in the Bible - not to find where a church father here or there agreed or disagreed.

I don't see purgatory in the scripture. I have seen many verses that are supposed to refer to purgatory, but the reasoning for assigning them to that idea is speculative at best.

I grew up in a religion that taught a future rapture in our time, and being left behind or caught up, then going through a great tribulation period for seven years....this doctrine was "proven" using select few verses from the Bible to support this theology...and hey, you could definitely believe that it was true if you only saw those verses and read them in the way they are presented by the left behind movement. But a closer look at the context reveals that those verses are not supporting that theology at all. In fact, I was told Jesus was going to come and rapture people on Sept 13, 1996, based on several passages, calculations, and some pretty faulty interpretation of scripture. Obviously, he didn't come on that date, and their reasoning was flawed. Their proof texts didn't prove what they assumed it did.

I think it's sort of similar, the way purgatory is taught and then read into the scriptures. You can find scripture that sounds like it supports it, but in my opinion, its just read into it and doesn't go along with the majority of the scripture which teaches that being absent from the body is being present with Christ. We are not attached to our sinful nature anymore after we die. That's in our flesh. And I cannot depend on myself for salvation...if I did, I would without a doubt be completely doomed. I have already broken Gods law. If you break one commandment, you are guilty of all.

Jesus atoned for all of my sin when he died and paid my debt on the cross. There is no sin that his blood was not worthy to atone for. Purgatory makes it appear that Christ could not complete the job by his death on the cross..that something more than his blood is necessary for salvation.

Jesus said that "it is finished" when he died on the cross. He paid the price. If we could suffer and thereby earn salvation for ourselves or anyone else, would we not then have a right to boast? The Bible says the reason that salvation is by grace through faith and not of works is "lest any man should boast".
The verse you cited does not speak of Christ's atonement. I other words, it does not say 'filling up what is lacking in Christ's atonement". It is speaking of the suffering that all Christians must bear in order to be image bearers of Christ...to bring glory to God. If the world hated him, it will also hate us...and if any man will live godly in Christ Jesus, they will suffer. But not as an atoning work.

There was still suffering for Christs name that was not accomplished yet...suffering that was appointed to Paul, and to other believers. Therefore, it was yet "lacking".

* * *
But this isn't surprising, as there are many church fathers, many of which disagreed with each other on a multitude of theological teachings....

That's true, but they also had remarkable accord on doctrines that are distinctively Catholic, and agreement against most if not all doctrines that are distinctively Protestant.

so I think the only way to know for sure is to see whether something is explicitly taught in the Bible - not to find where a church father here or there agreed or disagreed.

Well, it's both. Catholics believe that true doctrine will be verified by the convergence of biblical teaching, tradition (Church fathers), and the sanction of the authoritative teaching Church. Purgatory developed a bit slowly at first, but then it was accepted for many hundreds of years before being arbitrarily thrown out by Protestants.

I don't see purgatory in the scripture. I have seen many verses that are supposed to refer to purgatory, but the reasoning for assigning them to that idea is speculative at best.

That's how you would see it, with Protestant lenses on; whereas we see it all over Scripture in various ways. I don't see sola Scriptura in Scripture, and you see that everywhere. True or false premises determine a lot of outcomes of what we believe.

It's not proven in an "explicit, ironclad / no one could possibly doubt it" manner, but then it's not required to be, since sola Scriptura is a false doctrine, and is not taught in the Bible (I've written two books just about that [one / two], and can send you e-books of both for free if you like). The irony is that Protestants apply sola Scriptura to all other doctrinal questions, when it itself is not a biblical teaching, and much in the Bible contradicts it.

I was a committed evangelical Protestant for 13 years, and an apologist in those days, too. I'm quite familiar with the teachings and outlooks: used to hold many of 'em myself. I didn't get into date-setting, but I used to believe in Rapture eschatology, from reading Hal Lindsey, until I later read some Reformed stuff and stopped believing in the Rapture.

I think it's sort of similar, the way purgatory is taught and then read into the scriptures. You can find scripture that sounds like it supports it, but in my opinion, its just read into it

Again, we are not presupposing the necessity for explicit proof for everything as you are, so you don't "see" it because the proofs aren't of that nature, for the most part. But there is plenty, including prayer for the dead, baptism for the dead (Paul flat-out mentions that, and you have to interpret it somehow), and third states after death (Luke 16 alone proves that).

and doesn't go along with the majority of the scripture which teaches that being absent from the body is being present with Christ.

Here you are assuming that being in purgatory is being separate from Christ. It is closer to Him than we are on earth. Everyone in purgatory is already saved, or they wouldn't be there.

We are not attached to our sinful nature anymore after we die. That's in our flesh.
Eventually that will be the case, after God mercifully purges us of all our attachment to sin. It's not just flesh, though. The devil and his demons were spiritual creatures, and they rebelled against God. Unless you mean it only in the non-material sense . . .

And I cannot depend on myself for salvation...if I did, I would without a doubt be completely doomed. I have already broken Gods law. If you break one commandment, you are guilty of all.

Neither do we. Catholics don't believe in works salvation (heresy of Pelagianism). Trent makes that crystal clear. We believe in salvation by grace alone, but we don't separate works from faith. as Protestants do by making sanctification separate from justification and salvation. All good works that we do are caused by God's grace.

Jesus atoned for all of my sin when he died and paid my debt on the cross. There is no sin that his blood was not worthy to atone for.

Yes, of course. We don't disagree on that.

Purgatory makes it appear that Christ could not complete the job by his death on the cross..that something more than his blood is necessary for salvation.

Not at all. Like I said, those in purgatory are saved, and they're saved because of God's grace and His work on the cross on our behalf. They are simply being cleansed so that they are fit to enter into God's presence. No more games about it being merely extrinsic, imputed, forensic justification; after we die it is the real thing: we have to be literally holy and without sin to be fit to enter into God's awesome presence.

That's what purgatory does. As I stated before, both sides agree about holiness in heaven. There's no sin there. How we get to that state from our present one is what is disputed.

Colossians 1:24 ["Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my flesh I complete what is lacking in Christ's afflictions for the sake of his body, that is, the church" -- RSV] is a specific sense of our participating in the death of Christ (which is a frequent biblical theme). The Church teaches that Jesus' death was super-sufficient and efficient for the salvation of all who are saved. We simply have to accept that work and repent, so that it can be applied in our particular case.

I think what is meant is that Christ intends for us to join in spreading the redemption that He won on the cross (many verses on sharing Christ's suffering and on helping to distribute His grace and salvation). Therefore, Paul would be saying that He is doing that, and that Jesus can't do it because He can't do the part that is what His followers do. It's not a limitation on God; only saying that we play a role in it, too. "Both/and" and not "either/or." This is biblical synergy. But the cooperation is not absolute equality: God is the cause of the grace and salvation; we only help distribute and apply it. It's part of redemptive suffering on behalf of others. The Navarre Bible Commentary expresses this, as well:

24. Jesus Christ our Lord perfectly accomplished the work the Father gave him to do (cf. Jn 17:4); as he said himself when he was about to die, “It is finished,” it is accomplished (Jn 19:30).

From that point onwards objective redemption is an accomplished fact. All men have been saved by the redemptive death of Christ. However, St. Paul says that he completes in his flesh “what is lacking in Christ’s afflictions”; what does he mean by this? The most common explanation of this statement is summarized by St. Alphonsus as follows: “Can it be that Christ’s passion alone was insufficient to save us? It left nothing more to be done, it was entirely sufficient to save all men. However, for the merits of the Passion to be applied to us, according to St. Thomas (Summa theologiae, III, q. 49, a. 3), we need to cooperate (subjective redemption) by patiently bearing the trials God sends us, so as to become like our head, Christ” (St. Alphonsus, Thoughts on the Passion, 10).

St. Paul is applying this truth to himself. Jesus Christ worked and strove in all kinds of ways to communicate his message of salvation, and then he accomplished the redemption by dying on the Cross. The Apostle is mindful of the Master’s teaching and so he follows in his footsteps (cf. 1 Pet 2:21), takes up his cross (cf. Mt 10:38) and continues the task of bringing Christ’s teaching to all men.

Faith in the fact that we are sharing in the sufferings of Christ, John Paul II says, gives a person “the certainty that in the spiritual dimension of the work of Redemption he is serving, like Christ, the salvation of his brothers and sisters. Therefore he is carrying out an irreplaceable service. In the Body of Christ, which is ceaselessly born of the Cross of the Redeemer, it is precisely suffering permeated by the spirit of Christ’s sacrifice that is the irreplaceable mediator and author of the good things which are indispensable for the world’s salvation. It is suffering, more than anything else, which clears the way for the grace which transforms human souls. Suffering, more than anything else, makes present in the history of humanity the force of the Redemption” (Salvifici doloris, 27). 

I'm a little confused now. I want to be sure I understand your position, Dave. Do you believe that Jesus' blood is sufficient and completely paid our debt in full, to those who are regenerate?

Yes, this is Catholic teaching. It's sufficient for the salvation of all men (not just the regenerate: which comes through baptism), but alas, some men reject it and God allows them to do that.

Do you believe that one who is saved is kept secure by Christ, and if they die (while in sin) they have to be refined but are still saved by grace?

Long discussion. The elect are who they are, and God knows that, but we don't. That's the problem in these sorts of analyses. The Reformed / evangelical notion of "absolute assurance of grace" is not a biblical position. Even Paul didn't talk like he was absolutely sure (several passages). Catholics believe we can have a strong "moral assurance" that we are in good graces with God and will most likely be saved in the end, by examining ourselves to see if we are not in a state of serious sin. One can fall away from a state of grace and lose one's salvation (dozens of Bible passages).

We believe that almost all those who are saved still have a "stain of sin" on their soul and will have to undergo purification in purgatory in order to be fit to enter into God's presence in the sinless environment of heaven.

Do you believe that there is anything we must do to keep our salvation?

We have to persevere in faith, do good works (that are the evidence of a genuine faith that isn't merely the bare assent of faith alone) and be free of mortal sin, that places that salvation in grave danger. That's why we have confession: to give believers a chance to "clean themselves up" and do better in the future, by being open to the leading of God's grace and His Word.


I think the purification does (or can, if we allow it) begin in this life. It's all of a piece. It's simply completed after death.
                                                                                   * * * * *

Bishop James White on the Book of James: His Juvenile "Challenge" Will be Met

Facebook friend L Niall Quinn recently directed my attention to one of Bishop White's innumerable hit pieces against me: one of his Dividing Line webcasts. This show was dated 2-19-08, and in it, he was mocking, ridiculing, constantly laughing and yucking it up like a drunk middle schooler, playing clips of the songs Liar (Three Dog Night) and Honesty (Billy Joel) and just having a grand old time conveying 5,390,712 ways to his fawning audience what an idiot, imbecile, and all-around ignoramus I supposedly am.

This is his normal modus operandi, folks. If he didn't act like an insufferably pompous, condescending ass when he deals with Catholics (and almost above all, with me), he wouldn't be James White: the Grand Poobah and Imperial Wizard of all Anti-Catholics.

White was "critiquing" (if we can call it that) a radio interview I did on 2-15-08, on the Spirit Morning Show, with Bruce and Kris McGregor. It was mostly about my book, The One-Minute Apologist . He played little clips of my comments (provided by equally vitriolic anti-Catholic James Swan, who is on record stating that I am a "psychotic"), and then proceeded to ridicule and mock them, in his inimitable, obnoxiously juvenile "style".

Around the 20 minute mark, he went after some comments I made on James 2. Here is what he says:

I don't know how long I spent, writing the chapter on James 2 in The God Who Justifies. . . . I've never seen a meaningful refutation or even an attempted refutation of that chapter . . . and I'll tell you one thing. Dave will call this mocking. This isn't mocking; this is a simple fact. That man is not up to even trying. He doesn't have the skills; he doesn't have the background; he doesn't have the training; . . .

Roman Catholic apologists . . . don't keep up with what anyone else is saying, who's providing a response to them . . .

Right. White was ranting about how we Catholic apologists don't read his books or bother to refute them, and allegedly don't interact with our best opponents, generally (of course he assumes that he is among those "best"). That's news to me. I guess that's why I wrote, Pillars of Sola Scriptura , which examined in great depth the two men that Protestants consider the best historic defenders of sola Scriptura: William Whitaker (1548-1595) -- White wrote that he was one of "a few godly servants of the truth have invested the time and effort necessary to produce for God's people a full-orbed defense of Scriptural sufficiency" -- and William Goode (1801-1868). These guys are considered (including by White and his anti-Catholic cronies) the cream of the crop. I did a 310-page book in response to them, citing them massively. 

I guess that's why his two big buddies, David T. King and William Webster (supposedly, profound Protestant apologists), have never responded to any of the several in-depth critiques I have done of their "work." King has been smarting since way back in 2002, when I blew out of the water his contention (yawn, zzzz) that Pope St. Pius X thought Blessed Cardinal Newman was a theological liberal, who espoused evolution of dogma rather than development of doctrine. Once I produced a letter from that saintly pope to the contrary, that was all over, and King -- clearly embarrassed, since he had been saying on a discussion board that Catholics were so stupid for not knowing that Newman was heterodox -- has utterly ignored me ever since (except for vehement insults).  

I replied to Webster's historically absurd arguments at great length in 2000 and in 2003. I've never heard a peep from him, ever. Zero, zilch, nada.  

Later, I showed how King and Webster's big three-volume set about sola Scriptura was self-published (White has been mocking my self-published books -- which are not all of my books -- for many years now).

I guess, too, my desire to ignore the most able critics of Catholicism is why I did a 388-page book in which I responded line-by-line to the entirety of Book IV of Institutes of the Christian Religion , by John Calvin. The book is called Biblical Catholic Answers for John Calvin . I did a follow-up in which I dealt with large portions of Books I-III of the Institutes, too: A Biblical Critique of Calvinism .

I guess this is why I have huge web pages devoted to both Calvin and Martin Luther, the founder of Protestantism, and a book about the latter (with scores and scores of their own words and arguments dealt with; why I have extensive papers taking on other Protestant figures of the period, like Chemnitz and Melanchthon, and Zwingli.

It's all, you see, because I want to ignore my best opponents. White talks about how his books are ignored by Catholics. Well, as of yet, I see no Protestants champing at the bit to come and refute any of these books of mine, nor a book that is a direct assault on one of the sacred pillars of Protestantism: my 100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura . So two can play at that game.

I ignore White and his books, for the most part, because he has shown himself an intellectual coward for now 18 years since I have encountered him. He ran from our first lengthy "postal debate" (leaving my final 36 pages of reply completely unanswered, as they remain to this day).

He split from a live chat in his own chat room (Dec. 2000), about Mariology, where I had no notes and talked spontaneously with him, because Reformed apologist Tim Enloe gave up in the debate that had been carefully planned (leaving halfway through it). We were going along, and I started answering all his questions, and asking him some difficult ones, and all of a sudden he had "technical problems," disappeared and was never heard from again, while I stayed in his own room for another 90 minutes chatting with folks.

He consistently refused further live chats. He has refused to go more than one round in any written encounters we have had, from 1995 up to the present. His usual method is to offer some halfway rational critique of something I wrote, then I reply point-by-point, refuting his stuff, at which point he completely ignores my counter-reply and descends to mockery and lying about both my argument and my abilities. See many many papers about White on my "Anti-Catholicism" page.

This has been his record, and why I don't waste much time on him, and why virtually no one else of note in the Catholic apologetics world does anymore, either. He has forfeited his "right" to be taken seriously by anyone, because of these dual characteristics: his intellectual cowardice and his insufferably insulting and asinine behavior with almost all of those he disagrees with. No one has time for that anymore.

But I am happy to make an exception to my usual rule of ignoring anti-Catholic polemics (in place since 2007). White thinks I ignore anti-Catholics now because I am so deathly afraid of their profound, sublime arguments. Let him think what he will. I'll be happy to take on a chapter of his book, just as I have taken on entire books written by Calvin, Goode, Whitaker, and other Protestant apologists. I saw a copy of his screed for 34 cents on amazon. That seemed about right. Perhaps someone could send me an e-book text if they have one, so I can cut-and-paste his comments.

Remember White's words: "That man [yours truly] is not up to even trying [to refute his chapter on James 2]. He doesn't have the skills; he doesn't have the background; he doesn't have the training . . ."

All the more reason for the silliness of White's running from my critiques of his illogical utterly incoherent garbage for 18 years now. He's got the Master's degree (from Fuller Theological Seminary) and the illegitimate "doctorate" from an unaccredited school [see analyses on that: one / two / three].
What's he so scared of? I don't have any theological degrees or formal training in that field (plenty of informal training and hundreds of books read over 35 years).

Will he even reply to my critique? Probably not, but if he does, almost certainly he'll follow his universal past record: respond once in a pseudo-scholarly, semi-behaved manner, engaging in his usual obfuscation, cynical selectivity, and sophistry. I'll then respond to that and he'll either utterly ignore it, simply repeat what I just refuted, again, or start in with the wholesale mocking and jerkdom, just like what we heard in this pathetic, embarrassing Dividing Line show.

Mark my words. I've had 18 years of experience with the man. It's always been the same. He never changes.


* * * * *

Books by Dave Armstrong: Revelation!: 1001 Bible Answers to Theological Questions

 
[completed on 3 October 2013. 250 pages. Published at Lulu on the same day]
---for purchase info., go to the bottom of the page ---

Dedication
To all lovers of Holy Scripture: God's inspired, infallible Word and revelation. May its infinite wisdom and knowledge fill you up and satisfy your grace-originated yearnings for truth, spiritual wholeness, and union with our Lord and Savior.
Introduction
The Bible is a complex, lengthy collection of 73 books. My aim – simple in concept but far more difficult in organization and execution -- is to make it easier to quickly find biblical answers to theological questions that are of perennial importance. I presuppose the inspiration and infallibility of the Bible, and this book is for Christians who accept those notions.   This effort is more “catechetical” (whatwe Catholics believe) than “apologetical” (whywe believe it); though to some extent it is the latter, too, insofar as “biblical prooftexts” constitute data in favor of one position over another. Apologetics appears in the way I select and categorize the topics. More often than not, these are what are called “Catholic distinctives”: topics that are regarded as “controversial” by non-Catholic Christians. I make no pretense to “proving” Catholic doctrines herein. I'm merely providing a quick reference source and food for thought.
One of my specialties as a Catholic apologist is “biblical evidence for Catholicism” (the name of my blog). The idea for the present volume came to me in a flash. I was trying to conceive of a fresh way to present “biblical evidence” not only for Catholicism but for Christian theology in general. It's sort of a summation of the best of the hundreds of examples of “biblical evidence” that I've presented in my 40 books (as of this writing).
The notion that arose in my mind was to simply provide Bible passages (usually one verse; sometimes a few together) that would be (in my humble opinion, anyway) the very best “answers” to a large number of one-sentence questions. 
The format might remind one of the popular TV game show Jeopardy, where the contestants are given a piece of information and have to come up with a question that it is the “answer” to. While compiling it, I looked at Bible passages and devised questions that the passages “answered”. 
I readily confess that the questions themselves introduce an element of subjectivity: my own conception of both the questions and the “best” Bible passages that could be construed as an “answer” to them. That was the fun aspect of the project, and what makes this book different and unusual. 
I think somewhere in the back of my mind, I was also perhaps vaguely recalling, particularly, The Question and Answer Catholic Catechism (New York: Doubleday Image, 1981), by my mentor, the late great Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. He divided his book into major categories, then subcategories, and finally into 1,701 individual questions. His answers were relatively simple “catechetical” replies that present the basic Catholic teachings or “answers.”
Likewise, my book consists of 18 broad categories (Roman numerals), and 200 numbered subcategories, under which the 1,001 particular questions are found, with each answer being a Bible passage.
The numerical format is simple. It is the section number (of 200), followed by a dash and then the number of the individual question in the section (e.g., 32-13). I suppose one could also add the larger category number, leading to a (St. Thomas Aquinas') Summa Theologica-like reference: III, 32-13.
All questions presuppose that the answer will come from the Bible; hence, no need to keep repeating over and over, “Where in the Bible . . . ?” or “What does Scripture teach about . . .?,” etc. I shall try to keep the questions as simple and direct (and on one specific topic) as I possibly can.
One objection that will certainly be aimed at this volume, is that it is mere “prooftexting”: a word that has a largely negative connotation of “citing Scripture in isolation and out of context to bolster positions already held on other grounds.” My reply to that charge, however, is as follows:
1) All systematic theology (indeed, even papal encyclicals or conciliar documents) entail citation of Bible verses (usually single ones, as in this book): and these can always be quibbled with by someone, because in citing a passage, it is presupposed that it has relevance to the topic at hand (and sometimes there can be honest disagreement about that).
2) Works that are trying to simplify theology as much as possible for the masses (including catechisms or like-minded literature) will tend to be of this "summary" nature. The question is whether simplification is a good thing overall or a bad thing. I think there is no question that it's good.
There is always time to go more into depth on issues, as a student or inquirer progresses in theological understanding. In my own collection of 40 books, I devote entire volumes to individual topics (for example, Eucharist, soteriology, Mary, the communion of saints). I've written two entire books and lengthy sections of several others, just on the topic of the falsity of sola Scriptura ("Scripture is the only infallible authority"). One can always consult those or other similar books, articles, etc., too. 
3) A "prooftext" can be cited properly or improperly, and that is a discussion in and of itself. An improper citation would be something taken out of context or interpreted wrongly, with regard to other relevant passages on the same topic, or historic and/or Church teaching (a heterodox or non-orthodox interpretation). That has to be -- or could be -- argued, which is beyond the purview of this particular book. Of course, I claim that I have done it properly and in line with the teachings of Holy Mother Church.
4) Here is an example of improper "prooftexting." Protestants (especially evangelicals) notoriously, and almost ubiquitously, cite the following passage as a supposed "proof" of sola Scriptura:
2 Timothy 3:16(KJV) All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
It's a long discussion, but in summary (and I've written more on this general topic than any other), nowhere in this passage do we find a notion that only Scripture is infallible or that it is the sole theological norm or standard for doctrine (the exclusive claim). Scripture itself also plainly asserts the authoritative, binding nature of apostolic tradition and the Church (as I document in this very book and several others). 
Therefore, the Catholic argues that to use this passage as an alleged "proof" of sola Scriptura is "prooftexting" in the very worst sense of the word: it is yanked out of the context of the entire Bible and what it teaches on the topic of the rule of faith, and it violates historic orthodoxy: what was taught all along, up until Protestantism in the 16th century introduced something far different. Things are read into the passage that simply aren't there, and we call this, "eisegesis" (reading in things rather than getting things out of Bible passages: "exegesis").
Now, in this volume, I submit that I have properly cited 2 Timothy 3:16, because I do so in line with historic Christian, apostolic teaching, and not in contradiction to what the Bible teaches in other passages. I don't read anything into it that isn't present. Thus, it is classified as follows:
I. Bible and Tradition (Authority)
4. Infallible Authority of Holy Scripture
4-6. Is Scripture inspired, or “God-breathed”?
The passage clearly teaches inspiration of Scripture: a thing that all serious Christians readily agree with. But it does not teach sola Scriptura: a notion that is improperly eisegeted into it, out of a prior bias and predisposition formed by Protestant premises. 
I hope readers find this work enjoyable, educational, and edifying: the “three E's” that I strive to achieve as a constant goal in all of my theological writing. The marvelous treasures in the Bible await all of us: inspired revelation from the Mind of God, via the human biblical writers.
Table of Contents
Dedication (p. 3)
Introduction (p. 5)

I. Bible and Tradition (Authority) [76 questions]

1. Tradition, Apostolic (p. 17) [12]2. Tradition, Oral (p. 19) [6]3. Older Oral Traditions Cited in the New Testament (p. 20) [6] 4.Infallible Authority of Holy Scripture (p. 21) [9]5. Private Judgment (p. 22) [3]6. Perspicuity (Clearness) of Scripture (p. 23) [2]7. Hermeneutics / Interpretation of Scripture (p. 24) [3]8. Traditions of Men (p. 25) [4]9. The Jewish Background of Christianity (p. 26) [15]10. Deuterocanonical Books (p. 29) [10]11. Development of Doctrine (p. 31) [6]
II. Doctrine of the Church (Ecclesiology) [152 questions]
12. Oneness / Unity of (p. 33) [6]13. Holiness / Teacher of Righteousness (p. 34) [6]14. Catholic (Universal) (p. 35) [10]15. Apostolic Succession (p. 38) [5]16. Authority to Make Binding Decisions (p. 39) [6]17. Visible (p. 40) [4]18. Infallible (p. 41) [4]19. Indefectible (p. 42) [7]20. Authoritative Councils (p. 44) [4]21. Priests / Sacrament of Holy Orders (p. 45) [13]22. Bishops (p. 47) [9]23. Dispenses Forgiveness (Sacrament of Penance) (p. 49) [5]24. Authority to Impose Penance (p. 50) [5]25. Indulgences (Relaxation of Temporal Punishment) (p. 51) [1]26. Celibacy: Heroic Calling with Less Distraction (p. 52) [3]27. Excommunication and Anathemas (p. 53) [4]28. The Papacy (p. 54) [24]29. Denominationalism and Sectarianism; Division (p. 59) [15]30. Sinners in the Church (p. 62) [16]31. Beautiful and/or Expensive Church Buildings (p. 67) [5]
III.Theology of Salvation (Soteriology) [198 questions]
32. Salvation is Ultimately by Grace Alone (p. 68) [4]33. Salvation is Notby Faith Alone (p. 69) [9]34. Salvation is Not by Works Alone (Pelagianism) (p. 71) [2]35. Grace + Faith + Works + Obedience = Salvation (p. 71) [4]36. The Central Place of Works in the Final Judgment (p. 72) [6] 37. Mortal and Venial Sin (p. 73) [6]38. Quantifiable Differences in Grace (p. 75) [3]39. Meritorious Action Enabled by God's Grace (p. 75) [9]40. Co-Workers with God / Synergy (p. 77) [5]41. Participation in Distribution of Grace and Salvation (p. 78) [7]42. God Enables True Human Righteousness (p. 79) [4]43. Human Beings Are Portrayed as “Righteous” (p. 80) [6]44. Initial Justification by Faith Alone (p. 81) [2]45. Infused Justification / Sanctification (p. 81) [18]46. Faith and Works: Two Sides of One Coin (p. 84) [5]47. Salvation as a Process (p. 85) [10]48. Moral Assurance of Salvation (p. 87) [2]49. God's Election of the Saved (p. 88) [7]50. Falsity of the Calvinist Doctrine of Total Depravity (p. 89) [10]51. Falsity of the Calvinist Doctrine of Limited Atonement (p. 92) [12]52. Falsity of the Calvinist Doctrine of Irresistible Grace (p. 94) [7] 53. Falsity of the Absolute Assurance of Salvation (p. 95) [5]54. Apostasy (Falling Away from Grace and Salvation) (p. 97) [9]55. Salvation Made Possible by Jesus' Death on the Cross (p. 99) [10]56. Theosis (p. 101) [5]57. Indwelling of the Holy Spirit (p. 102) [7]58. Personal Relationship with Jesus (p. 103) [9]59. The Nature of the Gospel (p. 104) [4]60. Falsity of Predestination to Hell (p. 106) [6]61. Original Sin (p. 108) [5]
IV. Purgatory [40 questions]
62. Indications of Purgatorial Process After Death (p. 109) [6]63. Analogous Purgatorial Processes on the Earth (p. 111) [13]64. Prayer for the Dead (p. 113) [3]65. Necessity of Actual Holiness in Order to Enter Heaven (p. 115) [5]66. Analogy to Sheol / Hades(Third State After Death) (p. 116) [13]
V. Penance [35 questions]
67. Temporal Punishment / Expiation for Sin (p. 119) [3]68. Atonement for Others (p. 120) [3]69. Fasting and Abstinence (p. 120) [5]70. Bodily Mortification (p. 122) [4]71. Sharing the Sufferings of Christ (p. 123) [7]72. Redemptive Suffering on Behalf of Others (p. 124) [13]
VI. Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist [16 questions]
73. Initiation at the Last Supper (p. 127) [4]74. Transubstantiation (p. 129) [2]75. The Eucharistic Realism of John 6 (p. 130) [1]76. Eucharistic Adoration (p. 130) [6]77. Communion in One Kind (p. 132) [3]
VII. Sacrifice of the Mass [27 questions]
78. Timeless Nature of the Mass (Jesus Died Once) (p. 133) [4]79. Analogies to the OT Sacrificial, Priestly System (p. 134) [8]80. St. Paul's Use of Priestly and Sacerdotal Categories (p. 136) [2]81. Jesus as the Sacrificial Passover Lamb (p. 136) [3]82. The Book of Hebrews (p. 137) [2]83. The Altar in Heaven (p. 138) [5]84. Christian Participation in the Death of Jesus (p. 139) [3]
VIII. Sacrament of Baptism [18 questions]
85. Baptismal Regeneration / Baptism and Salvation (p. 140) [10]86. Infant Baptism (p. 142) [4]87. Baptism and Being “Born Again” (p. 143) [1]88. Infants as Part of the Kingdom and Covenant (p. 143) [3]
IX. Sacrament of Confirmation [22 questions]
89. Descent of the Holy Spirit Upon Persons (p. 144) [6]90. Jesus' Baptizing with the Holy Spirit (p. 145) [3]91. Being “Filled” with the Holy Spirit (p. 146) [5]92. Holy Spirit and the Laying on of Hands (p. 146) [2]93. “Sealed” with the Holy Spirit (p. 147) [3]94. Anointing with Oil in Order to Receive the Holy Spirit (p. 147) [1]95. Holy Spirit Received Via Authoritative Persons (p. 148) [2]
X. Sacrament of Anointing [6 questions]
96. Priests Anoint with Oil to Heal Recipients (p. 148) [2]97. Laying on of Hands for Healing (p. 149) [1]98. Spiritual Benefit in Healing (e.g., Demoniacs) (p. 149) [3]
XI. Sacramentals, Devotions, and Worship [55 questions]
99. Wholehearted Formal Prayer and Worship (p. 150) [4]100. The Rosary (p. 151) [3]101. Holy Water (p. 152) [3]102. Candles and Incense (p. 153) [5]103. Holy Places / Sacred Ground (p. 154) [6]104. Holy and Sacred Items (p. 155) [5]105. Music in Worship (p. 156) [5]106. Priestly Blessings (p. 157) [3]107. Examination of Conscience (p. 158) [2]108. Almsgiving (p. 159) [2]109. Genuflection and Kneeling (p. 159) [4]110. Physical Items as Aids in Worship of God (p. 160) [3]111. Special Presence of God in Physical Objects (p. 161) [4]112. Holy Days (p. 162) [2]113. Mass Obligation (p. 162) [2]114. Sunday worship / Sabbath Principle (p. 163) [2]
XII. Angels and the Communion of Saints / Eschatology [57 questions]
115. Dead Saints Returning to Earth (p. 163) [4]116. Communication from God in Dreams (p. 165) [4]117. Invocation of Saints (Asking them to Intercede) (p. 166) [2]118. Invocation of Angels (Asking them to Intercede) (p. 166) [1]119. Veneration of Saints and Imitation of Holy Persons (p. 167) [6]120. Veneration of Angels & Men as God's Representatives (p. 168) [2] 121. Intercession of the Saints (p. 168) [7]122. Intercession of Angels (p. 170) [4]123. Guardian Angels (p. 171) [2]124. Veneration of Images (p. 171) [3]125. Worshiping God, Kneeling Before Man-Made Statues (p. 172) [1]126. Worship of God Via an Image (p. 173) [2]127. Crucifixes (p. 173) [4]128. Relics (p. 174) [4]129. Hell (p. 176) [4]130. Falsity of Universalism (p. 177) [7]
XIII. The Blessed Virgin Mary (Mariology) [25 questions]
131. Sinlessness (p. 179) [3]132. Immaculate Conception (p. 179) [4]133. Perpetual Virginity (p. 180) [3]134. “Mother of God” (Theotokos) (p. 181) [4]135. “Spouse of the Holy Spirit” (p. 182) [2]136. Analogies of Bodily Assumption Into Heaven (p. 182) [3]137. Queen of Heaven (p. 183) [1]138. Spiritual Mother of Men (p. 183) [1]139. Mediatrix and Intercessor (p. 184) [4]
XIV. Jesus Christ (Christology) [80 questions]
140. Equality with the Father (p. 185) [4]141. Creator (p. 186) [5]142. Eternal and Uncreated (p. 187) [6]143. Worshiped (p. 188) [6]144. Omnipotent (All-Powerful) (p. 189) [1]145. Omniscient (All-Knowing) (p. 189) [1]146. Omnipresent (Present Everywhere) (p. 189) [1]147. Forgives Sins in His Own Name (p. 190) [3]148. Receives Prayer (p. 190) [5]149. Sinlessness / Impeccability (p. 191) [5]150. Called Lord(Kurios) (p. 192) [4]151. Called God(Theos) (p. 192) [7]152. Called Many Things Also Applied to the Father (p. 194) [15]153. Image (Icon) of the Invisible Father (p. 196) [1]154. Primacy of the Name of Jesus (p. 196) [5]155. Claimed to be the Messiah (p. 197) [1]156. Claimed to be God (p. 197) [1]157. Claimed to be the Savior of the World (p. 198) [7]158. Judge of the World (p. 199) [1]159. Willing Subjection as Messiah (p. 199) [1]
XV. God the Father (Theology Proper) [31 questions]
160. God is One (Monotheism) (p. 200) [2]161. Creator (p. 200) [3]162. Eternal (p. 201) [1]163. Non-Material (Invisible Spirit) (p. 201) [2] 164. Exclusively Worshiped and Adored (p. 201) [1]165. Omnipotent (All-Powerful) (p. 201) [1]166. Omniscient (All-Knowing) (p. 202) [1]167. Omnipresent (Present Everywhere) (p. 202) [1]168. Outside of Time (p. 202) [2]169. Sovereign (p. 202) [4]170. Thoughts Are Beyond Human Comprehension (p. 203) [2]171. Anthropomorphism and Anthropopathism (p. 204) [2]172. Immutable (p. 204) [3]173. Impassible (Without “Passion” or Emotion) (p. 204) [1]174. Self-Existent and Simple (Not Composite) (p. 205) [2]175. Monarchia/ Principatus(Unbegotten) (p. 205) [3]
XVI. The Holy Spirit (Pneumatology) and Trinitarianism 
[28 questions]
176. Passages with All Three Divine Persons (p. 206) [4]177. Personal Attributes of the Holy Spirit (p. 207) [10]178. Divinity / Divine Attributes of the Holy Spirit (p. 208) [6]179. Holy Spirit's Procession from the Father and Son (p. 210) [3]
180. Circumincession: Divine Persons “In” Each Other (p. 210) [5]
XVII. Sacrament of Marriage [47 questions]
181. Analogy of Marriage to Christ and His Church (p. 211) [5]182. Valid Marriage is Indissoluble / No Divorce (p. 212) [5]183. Annulment (Declaration of Non-Marriage) (p. 214) [3]184. Extramarital Sex Prohibited (p. 215) [8]185. The Sin of Contraception (p. 217) [8]186. Many Children Are a Blessing (p. 219) [4]187. Preborn Children Are Persons (p. 220) [7]188. Abortion is Murder and Forbidden (p. 221) [4]189. Child Sacrifice is an Abomination (p. 222) [3]
XVIII. Miscellaneous [88 questions]
190. Apologetics (Rational Defense of Christianity) (p. 223) [13]191. Ecumenism (p. 226) [7]192. Invincible Ignorance (p. 229) [4]193. Vegetarianism (p. 230) [6]194. Atheism (p. 232) [2]195. Use of Alcohol (p. 233) [13]
196. Permissibility of Just War (p. 236) [10] [read online]197. Permissibility of Capital Punishment (p. 238) [13]198. Judgment of Nations (p. 243) [12]199. God's Middle Knowledge (p. 247) [5]200. “Baptizing” Pagan Practices and Truth (p. 249) [3]

 Back Cover
 


Purchase Options



Paperback (List: $20.95 / 20% Lulu Discount: $16.76) 

$6.99 [soon]

$2.99 

$6.99 [soon]

$6.99 [soon]


$6.99 [soon]

Last revised on 3 October 2013.